Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36320050›Full record

ArticleEye and vision (London, England)2022

Q-value customized versus wavefront-optimized ablation in femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK for myopia and myopic astigmatism: a prospective contralateral comparative study.

Magdi Mohammad Mostafa, Hazem Abdelmotaal, Khaled Abdelazeem, Islam Goda, Mahmoud Abdel-Radi

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Eye and vision (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04738903 (Q Value Customized Versus Wavefront Optimized Ablation in Femtosecond Laser-Assisted LASIK for Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism. A Contralateral Comparative Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04738903 nacompletednot on this map

Q Value Customized Versus Wavefront Optimized Ablation in Femtosecond Laser-Assisted LASIK for Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism. A Contralateral Comparative Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2020 to 2021Enrolled40ConditionsPatients With Myopic Spherical Equivalent up to -12 DioptersArmsFemtosecond laser assisted LASIK eye surgery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Magdi Mohammad MostafaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Assiut University Hospital, Assiut University, Sixth Floor, Assiut, 71516, Egypt.
Hazem AbdelmotaalDepartment of Ophthalmology, Assiut University Hospital, Assiut University, Sixth Floor, Assiut, 71516, Egypt.
Khaled AbdelazeemDepartment of Ophthalmology, Assiut University Hospital, Assiut University, Sixth Floor, Assiut, 71516, Egypt.
Islam GodaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Assiut University Hospital, Assiut University, Sixth Floor, Assiut, 71516, Egypt.
Mahmoud Abdel-RadiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Assiut University Hospital, Assiut University, Sixth Floor, Assiut, 71516, Egypt. mahmoudradi@aun.edu.eg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9383-9520

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCorneal refractive surgery for myopia results in an oblate shift with increased postoperative aberrations inversely affecting the quality of vision. Aspheric ablation profiles have been introduced to minimize such a problem. The aim of this study was to compare changes in corneal asphericity, central and mid-peripheral pachymetry between the Q-value customized and the wavefront-optimized (WFO) ablation profiles.

methodsA prospective, comparative non-randomized fellow eye study was conducted. Eighty eyes of 40 eligible patients underwent femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia and myopic astigmatism. In each patient, the more myopic eye was included in the custom-Q ablation experimental group and the other less myopic eye was included in the WFO control group. For the custom-Q group, the target asphericity was set to the preoperative Q-value. Corneal asphericity, central and mid-peripheral pachymetric changes and the root mean square of corneal higher-order aberrations (RMSh) were assessed 6 months following surgery. Visual and refractive outcomes were also evaluated in both platforms 6 months postoperatively.

resultsThe mean preoperative refractive spherical equivalent was significantly more myopic in the custom-Q group than in the WFO group (P = 0.001). The mean Q-value changed from - 0.2 ± 0.1 to 0.6 ± 0.7 and from - 0.2 ± 0.1 to 0.4 ± 0.5 in the custom-Q and WFO groups, respectively. The oblate shift in corneal asphericity was not significantly different between both treatment groups (P = 0.094). The mean ablation depth at the pupillary center was significantly greater in the custom-Q group (P = 0.011), while there was no significant difference at the mid-peripheral pachymetry (P = 0.256). The RMSh significantly increased in both treatment profiles (P < 0.001) with no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.06). The uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and the manifest refraction spherical equivalents (MRSE) significantly improved in both treatment groups (P < 0.001).

conclusionsThe custom-Q treatment profile with target asphericity set at the preoperative Q-value achieved comparable outcomes vs. the WFO profile in terms of postoperative corneal asphericity and mid-peripheral pachymetry despite the greater amount of ablation, the smaller optical zone, and the resulting increase in postoperative corneal flattening in the custom-Q group. Trial registration (Clinicaltrials.gov): NCT04738903, 4 February 2021- Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04738903.

Indexed as

Corneal asphericityCustom QQ-valueWavefront-optimized

Identifiers

PMID36320050
PMCPMC9628024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.