ArticleBMC ophthalmology2023
Comparison of errors in ablation depth calculation after myopic femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis in patients with different degrees of myopia: a prospective study.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2023. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the difference between the predicted preoperative corneal ablation depth and the measured ablation depth for femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) in patients with different degrees of myopia, and to analyze the source of the difference.
methodsA total of 55 patients (109 eyes) were included in this study. Multiple logistics regression was applied to analyze the sources affecting postoperative refractive outcomes. The difference between the preoperative predicted corneal ablation depth and the 1-day postoperative ablation depth in patients with different degrees of myopia was explored using linear regression. Corneal biomechanical parameters influencing error in ablation depth calculation were examined using multiple linear regression.
resultsOne hundred and nine eyes were divided into low to moderate myopia (55 eyes, myopia of 6 D or less), high myopia (45 eyes, myopia ranging from 6 D to a maximum of 9 D), and very high myopia group (9 eyes, myopia greater than 9 D) based on preoperative refractive error (spherical equivalent). Postoperative visual outcomes were comparable among the three groups of patients, with no significant difference in uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA). We did find notable disparities in spherical equivalent (SE) and central corneal thickness (CCT) in patients with different degrees of myopia at 1 day postoperatively (all p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that error in ablation depth calculation was an independent risk factor for refractive outcomes one day after surgery (OR = 1.689, 95% CI: 1.366 - 2.089). There was a substantial discrepancy in error in ablation depth calculation at 1 day postoperatively between the three groups. The measured ablation depth of the laser platform was lower than the predicted ablation depth in the low to moderate myopia and very high myopia groups, but the opposite was true in the high myopia group. Pre-operative SE (p < 0.001) and corneal front minimum radius of curvature (Front Rmin) (p = 0.007) obviously influenced the error in ablation depth calculation.
conclusionsError in ablation depth calculation values vary significantly between patients with different degrees of myopia and correlate highly with preoperative SE and Front Rmin. At the same time, the available evidence suggests that error in ablation depth calculation is an influential factor in postoperative refractive status, so it is imperative to control error in ablation depth calculation.
Indexed as
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.