Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
1 result(s) for "Triple-A advanced ablation algorithm"
Sort by:
Comparison of clinical outcomes in PRK with a standard and aspherical optimized profile: a full case analysis of 100 eyes with 1-year follow-up
One hundred eyes from 55 adult patients with myopia were retrospectively studied to determine the comparative safety, efficacy, and predictability of aberration smart ablation (ASA) and a new advanced ablation algorithm (Triple-A) using the MEL(®) 80 excimer laser. Fifty myopic eyes with a manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) between -1.0 diopters (D) and -9.75 D were consecutively treated with photorefractive keratec-tomy ASA, and 50 myopic eyes with an MRSE between -1.38 D and -11.0 D with photorefractive keratectomy Triple-A. Uncorrected distance visual acuity, MRSE, the absolute value of the cylinder, corrected distance visual acuity, and postoperative complications at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months (1 year) were descriptively analyzed and compared at 1 year. After 12 months, the MRSE variance was statistically significantly better in patients triaged to receive Triple-A compared with patients receiving ASA (ASA, ±0.7 D; Triple-A, ±0.15 D; P<0.001). Furthermore, no patient in the Triple-A group had any cylinder postoperatively. Patients in the Triple-A treatment arm achieved a superior result. No statistically significant difference in the two treatment arms was noted for the analysis of the mean MRSE at 12 months (P=0.78). Triple-A was more effective than standard aspherical surgical intervention in a number of treatment outcome parameters (eg, MRSE, astigmatism, efficacy index). The two surgical procedures were equivalent in terms of safety.