- Belgrade '18
- Vienna '18
- ESCRS Player
- On Demand
- ESCRS iLearn
- ESCRS YO's
Session Title: New evaluation tools in refractive surgery
Session Date/Time: Sunday 06/10/2013 | 08:00-09:30
Paper Time: 08:06
Venue: Forum (Ground Floor)
First Author: : O.Klaproth GERMANY
Co Author(s): : C. Sasse J. Bühren T. Kohnen
To evaluate the influence of blur, accommodation and target laser settings on eye movements during laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).
Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
11 subjects familiar with soft contact lens-wear underwent simulated treatment of -5 D myopia with an excimer laser (Schwind Amaris 500Hz) in one eye. 4 treatments were simulated with disabled treatment beam. Soft contact lenses for near correction (according to subjects ametropia and distance of the fixation target, (1)) followed by soft contact lenses with roughened surface (simulation of free stromal bed after femtosecond flap creation(2)) were fitted consecutively. For both situations, evaluation took place with the target beam on (A) and off (B). Order of settings and eyes was randomized. Standard deviation (SD) and threshold frequency under which 95% of movements occured (f95) were analyzed for lateral and torsional movements. FRIEDMAN testing was used to evaluate differences in metrics between settings.
Mean SD in the four groups (in order: 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B) were: Lateral horizontal movements: 156.15µm / 1733.58µm / 136.92µm / 120.14µm. Lateral vertical movements: 178.31µm / 1691.38µm / 127.65µm / 88.60µm. Torsional movements: 0.51° / 0.37° / 0.33° / 0.26°. Mean f95 was: Lateral horizontal movements: 6.9Hz / 8.09 Hz / 6.52 Hz / 10.63 Hz. Lateral vertical movements: 7.12 Hz / 8.43Hz / 10.01 Hz / 16.52Hz. Torsional movements: 0.54Hz / 0.28Hz / 0.28Hz / 0.33Hz. There were no significant differences in SD or f95 between groups.
Variations of blur status, accommodation and target laser settings do have no significant influence on eye movements during LASIK in the range tested.
... receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a competing company, ... travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, ... travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, ... research is funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, ... research is funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, ... receives non-monetary benefits from a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented.
Please wait while information is loading.