Trial reportJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2026
Comparison of clinical and patient-reported outcomes of contralateral topography-guided vs wavefront-guided LASIK.
Trial report in Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare 6-month visual and patient-reported outcomes between topography-guided (TG) using Contoura with Phorcides and wavefront-guided (WFG) LASIK using iDesign 2.0 laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).
settingJoint Warfighter Refractive Surgery Center, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.
designProspective, double-blind, randomized.
methods66 participants receive TG-LASIK in one eye and WFG-LASIK in the contralateral eye. Preoperative and postoperative assessments included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), manifest refraction, higher-order aberrations (HOAs), Schirmer test, and validated questionnaires (Patient-Reported Outcomes with LASIK-Symptoms and Satisfaction; Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness). Flaps were created with the Zeiss VisuMax femtosecond laser, followed by TG or WFG excimer laser ablation. Outcomes were evaluated at multiple timepoints through 6 months.
resultsAt 6 months, 54% of WFG-LASIK eyes and 46% of TG-LASIK eyes achieved UDVA of 20/16 or better ( P = .48). TG-LASIK showed a higher efficiency index (1.08 vs 1.02; P = .03) and better mean spherical equivalent (0.04 diopters [D] vs 0.13 D; P = .04), while WFG-LASIK had superior low-contrast UDVA and CDVA. Safety indices, residual HOAs, and dry eye symptoms were similar between groups. Both procedures significantly improved patient satisfaction and reduced visual disturbances compared with baseline.
conclusionsBoth TG-LASIK and WFG-LASIK using the latest excimer and diagnostic platforms, Contoura with Phorcides on the WaveLight EX500 and iDesign 2.0 on the VISX STAR S4 IR, are highly effective and safe options for customized refractive correction.
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.