Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparison of corneal aberrations between patients who underwent WFO trans-PRK and CWFG trans-PRK

From: Comparison between Wavefront-optimized and corneal Wavefront-guided Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy in moderate to high astigmatism

 

RMS HOA

Spherical aberration

Coma

Trefoil

 

WFO

CWFG

P value

WFO

CWFG

P value

WFO

CWFG

P value

WFO

CWFG

P value

Preoperative

0.53 ± 0.15 (0.27 to 1.07)

0.51 ± 0.16 (0.05 to 0.95)

.431

0.27 ± 0.10 (0.10 to 0.51)

0.27 ± 0.11 (0.02 to 0.58)

.989

0.30 ± 0.18 (0.01 to 0.92)

0.30 ± 0.17 (0.02 to 0.77)

.877

0.22 ± 0.11 (0.01 to 0.50)

0.21 ± 0.11 (0.03 to 0.57)

.464

6 month

0.84 ± 0.24 (0.40 to 1.46)

0.74 ± 0.23 (0.27 to 1.71)

.007*

0.57 ± 0.24 (0.04 to 1.10)

0.50 ± 0.26 (0.03 to 1.07)

.040*

0.39 ± 0.21 (0.03 to 0.95)

0.31 ± 0.18 (0.02 to 1.07)

.004*

0.21 ± 0.11 (0.02 to 0.53)

0.19 ± 0.14 (0.01 to 0.67)

.259

P value (vs. preop.)

<.001*

<.001*

 

<.001*.

<.001*

 

<.001*.

.777

 

.526.

.351

 

Δ (Pre vs. 6 month)

0.31 ± 0.25 (− 0.18 to 1.04)

0.23 ± 0.26 (− 0.38 to 0.97)

.040*

0.30 ± 0.24 (− 0.23 to 0.86)

0.23 ± 0.24 (− 0.22 to 0.71)

.035*

0.08 ± 0.20 (− 0.41 to 0.63)

0.01 ± 0.20 (− 0.46 to 0.52)

.007*

−0.01 ± 0.12 (− 0.31 to 0.22)

−0.02 ± 0.15 (− 0.43 to 0.32)

.622

  1. Results are expressed as means ± standard deviation (range)
  2. WFO wavefront-optimized, CWFG corneal wavefront-guided, Trans-PRK transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy, RMS Root mean square; HOA higher-order aberration, Δ change; * P value < 0.05