ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2019
Clinical Evaluation of LASEK for High Myopia Correction between the Triple-A Profile and the Zyoptix Tissue Saving Profile.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the effects of correcting high myopia using the MEL®90 Triple-A profile LASEK at a 500 Hz pulse rate (Triple-A group) versus the Zyoptix tissue-saving ablations of Technolas 217z laser platform at 100 Hz (TS group).
methodsThis retrospective study included 50 eyes in the Triple-A group and 42 eyes in the TS group with manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) of -6 diopters (D) to -10 D. We compared uncorrected distance visual acuity, MRSE, corrected distance visual acuity, and postoperative complications at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months.
resultsAt 6 months after refractive surgery, the efficacy index of Triple-A group was significantly higher than that of the TS group (1.03 ± 0.12 vs 1.00 ± 0.11,
conclusionFor treatment of high-myopia patients, the Triple-A profile was more effective, predictable, and accurate than the Zyoptix tissue-saving profile. Meanwhile, the Triple-A profile had less induced spherical aberrations, total HOAs, and cornea ablation depth than the Zyoptix tissue-saving profile. Patients in the Triple-A group with 500 Hz pulse rate treatment achieved superior results. The two surgical procedures were equivalent in terms of safety and stability.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.