1-Year Clinical Outcomes Of Two Different Ablation Profiles (Regular And Strong) With The Supracor Presbyopic Lasik Treatment
Published 2024 - 42nd Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: PP17.12 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/ageh-z910
Authors: Robert Edward Ang* 1
1Cornea and Refractive Surgery,Asian Eye Institute,Makati,Philippines
Purpose
To evaluate refractive and visual outcomes of the presbyopic laser algorithm SUPRACOR (SC) with two different ablation profiles (SC strong and SC regular) using the TECHNOLAS TENEO 317 Model 2 Excimer Laser Platform.
Setting
Asian Eye Institute, Makati, Philippines
Methods
In this 12M prospective randomized single surgeon study, 60 subjects (36 myopic and 24 hyperopic) were included: the dominant eye targeted for emmetropia was treated using the aspheric ablation profile PROSCAN and the non-dominant eye was randomized to either SC strong or SC regular ablation profile with a refractive target of -0.50 D. Same nomogram was used for all eyes. Subjects were 50.1±3.5 years (66.7% female) for the SC regular group and 48.7±4.0 years of age (60.0% female) for the SC strong group. Examinations included manifest refraction, monocular and binocular visual acuity at all distances (UDVA, CDVA UIVA, DCIVA, UNVA and DCNVA), defocus curve, contrast sensitivity and PROM using PRSIQ and NAVQ questionnaires.
Results
At 1 year after surgery, MRSE improved from -1.54±3.13 D preoperatively to -0.57±0.47D (SC regular) and from -2.84±2.81D to -0.71±0.56D (SC strong). Mean binocular CDVA was -0.01±0.03 (regular) and -0.01±0.04 logMAR (strong) with no eye with a loss of 2 lines or more; mean binocular UDVA was -0.01±0.04 (regular) vs 0.00±0.05 logMAR (strong); mean binocular UIVA was 0.00±0.06 (regular) vs 0.00±0.08 logMAR (strong) and mean binocular UNVA was 0.09±0.10 (regular) vs 0.10±0.12 logMAR (strong). No statistically significant differences observed between groups (p>0.05). Binocular defocus curve reported useful VA (≥0.2 logMAR) up to -2.5D and patients-reported questionnaire showed a high level spectacle independency for both groups.
Conclusions
Both presbyopic treatment options were safe and effective in restoring near and intermediate VA. Patients treated with SC regular or SC strong in the non-dominant eye and PROSCAN in the dominant eye achieved a high level of visual acuity over the full range of distances with no statistical differences between groups. Further analysis split per hyperopic and myopic eyes will be investigated and discussed at a later stage.