Núñez-Medrano JÁ, Razo Blanco-Hernández DM, Lima GV

Language: Spanish
References: 9
Page: 126-130
PDF size: 187.25 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Ametropias are a common cause of vision impairment; excimer laser ablation may be one of the treatments. However, in some cases, it is necessary to use special cards that may not be available for the procedure. Aim: To determine the proportion of patients who require an ablation card for refractive surgery and determine a cut-off point for maximum coverage without cards. Material and methods: A retrospective, comparative, observational, transversal study to know the spherocylindrical refraction, spherical equivalent and corneal thickness in patients that required ablation cards against those who did not, and a cut-off point was determined for maximum coverage without the use of cards. Results: A sample of 345 eyes was analyzed; patients who required a card, the spherical equivalent was -4.39 ± 1.92 diopters (CI 95% -4.74 a -4.05) and the spherical refraction was -3.28 ± 2.24 diopters (CI 95% -3.68 a -2.89) which were statistically significant compared to those who did not make use of a card (p ‹ 0.001). The groups were analized with a cut-off point of -3.00 diopters of spherical equivalent (p ‹ 0.001, OR 8.71, CI 95% 5.21 to 14.57) and spherical refraction of -2.5 diopters (p ‹ 0.001, OR 6.9, CI 95% 4.22 to 11.30). Eighty-five point two percent of the eyes attended had a spherical refraction of -2.5 diopters (CI 95% 78.38 to 86.42) and 85.2% have a spherical equivalent of -3.00 diopters (CI 95% 81.45 to 88.95). Conclusions: The most patients who cannot receive attention without cards is 35.4%, taking a cut-off point of spherical refraction of -2.5 diopters and a spherical equivalent of -3.00 diopters.

REFERENCES

1. Bourne RR, Stevens GA, White RA, Smith JL, Flaxman SR, Price H et al. Causes of vision loss worldwide, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2013; 1(6): e339-49.

2. Schiefer U, Kraus C, Baumbach P, Ungewiß J, Michels R. Refractive errors. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2016; 113(41): 693-702.

3. McAlinden C. Corneal refractive surgery: past to present. Clin Exp Optom 2012; 95(4): 386-98.

4. American Academy of Ophthalmology Refractive Management/Intervention Panel. Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines. Refractive errors and refractive surgery. San Francisco, CA: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2013. Disponible en: www.aao.org/ppp

5. Prakash G, Agarwal A, Kumar DA, Jacob S, Agarwal A, Maity A. Surface ablation with iris recognition and dynamic rotational eye tracking-based tissue saving treatment with the Technolas 217z excimer laser. J Refract Surg 2011; 27(3): 223-31.

6. Nassiri N, Sheibani K, Azimi A, Khosravi FM, Heravian J, Yekta A, et al. Refractive outcomes, contrast sensitivity, HOAs, and patient satisfaction in moderate myopia: Wavefront-optimized versus tissue-saving PRK. J Refract Surg 2015; 31(10): 683-90.

7. Randleman JB, Woodward M, Lynn MJ, Stulting RD. Risk assessment for ectasia after corneal refractive surgery. Ophthalmology 2008; 115(1): 37-50.

8. Aslanides IM, Tsiklis NS, Astyrakakis NI, Pallikaris IG, Jankov MR. LASIK flap characteristics using the Moria M2 microkeratome with the 90-microm single use head. J Refract Surg 2007; 23(1): 45-9.

9. Huhtala A, Pietilä J, Mäkinen P, Suominen S, Seppänen M, Uusitalo H. Corneal flap thickness with the Moria M2 single-use head 90 microkeratome. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2007; 85(4): 401-6.