Laser Eye Surgery Forum

Evidence for effectiveness of different treatments.

I understand intralase and waveform are reported to give better results but is there any evidence i can look at with numbers treated and how results are judged and if there is a correlation between different people with different presciptions? I am wondering if reported improvements between standard lasix and waveforem are significant.

The evidence on wavefront optimisation is very clear, targeting spherical aberration, and gives much better results. At Focus Laser Vision, we have now achieved 100% of myopic patients seeing 20/20 or better using optimised optics (wavefront optimised) technique, combines with a femtosecond laser flap (95% see better than 20/20). Schallhorn's paper showed more patients seeing better than 20/20 with a femtosecond laser flap compared to a blade cut. Our results repeat that result. In 2010 you don't want anything but 'wavefront' and femtosecond (Intralase, Ziemer) blade-free flap creation.

Wavefront Optimisation was introduced into the UK by Accuvision Laser Eye Clinics in 2002. It has enabled patients to achieve a greater clarity of vision and is included in the price of all treatments. Femtosecond laser flaps are a different matter. The laser created flaps are normally produced at 140 microns and in many cases a microkeratome flap is more beneficial to the patient as it can be created with a thickness of under 100 microns if you have a highly skilled and experienced surgeon treating you. At Accuvision it is the surgeon who decides which type of flap should be used to provide the best treatment plan for the patient. The visual outcome for patients at Accuvision is the same. The price is also the same for both treatments. What is best for the patient is the focus at Accuvision.