These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Search MEDLINE/PubMed
Title: Bilateral comparison of photorefractive keratectomy for myopia using two excimer lasers. Author: Lipshitz I, Fisher L, Lazar M, Loewenstein A. Journal: J Refract Surg; 1999; 15(3):334-7. PubMed ID: 10367576. Abstract: PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the results of excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in patients who underwent PRK using the Summit Apex (Omnimed) excimer laser in one eye and the Nidek EC-5000 excimer laser in the other. METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent PRK with the Summit Apex laser (Omnimed) in one eye and the Nidek laser (EC-5000) in the second and had at least 12 months of follow-up were included in this retrospective study (n=30). Uncorrected and spectacle-corrected visual acuity, final spherical equivalent refraction, and grade of subepithelial haze were compared. The average preoperative spherical equivalent refraction of eyes treated with the Summit laser was -6.00 D (range, -2.50 to -8.75 D), and for Nidek-treated eyes it was -5.57 D (range, -2.50 to -8.80 D). RESULTS: Forty-seven percent of Summit-treated eyes and 53% of Nidek-treated eyes had uncorrected visual acuity of 6/6 or better; 61% of Summit-treated eyes and 63% of Nidek-treated eyes had uncorrected visual acuity of 6/7.5 or better; 95% of Summit-treated eyes and 95% of Nidek-treated eyes had uncorrected visual acuity of 6/12 or better (difference not statistically significant). Seventy-three percent of eyes treated with the Summit laser and 80% of eyes treated with the Nidek laser had a postoperative refraction within +/-0.50 D of emmetropia; 97% of Summit-treated eyes and 87% of Nidek-treated eyes had a postoperative spherical equivalent refraction within +/-1.00 D of emmetropia; the difference between the two lasers was not statistically significant. However, the percent of eyes with persistent hyperopia was smaller in the Nidek group after 3 months (P=.0062) and after 6 months (P=.07) than in the Summit group. Videokeratography was not done. CONCLUSION: Both lasers were effective with relatively low side effects. No significant difference was found between the two lasers in postoperative uncorrected visual acuity or refractive outcome. Eyes operated with the Nidek laser had less persistent hyperopia and stabilized earlier.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]