The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Clinical results of wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis 3 months after surgery
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the visual and refractive outcome of wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) to correct myopic astigmatism. SETTING: Departments of Ophthalmology of the Universities of Dresden, Dresden, Germany, and Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. METHODS: This prospective study comprised 35 eyes of 28 patients who had a mean preoperative spherical refraction of -4.8 diopters (D) +/- 2.3 (SD) and a cylinder of -1.1 +/- 0.9 D. Preoperative and postoperative wavefront analysis was performed with a Tscherning aberrometer. A scanning-spot laser with a 1.0 mm spot size and a 200 Hz repetition rate was used. The eye-tracking system had a response time of less than 6 milliseconds. The treatment area diameter ranged from 6.0 to 7.0 mm with a transition zone of 1.0 mm. RESULTS: At 3 months, 68.0% of the eyes were within +/-0.5 D of emmetropia and 93.5% were within +/-1.0 D. Uncorrected visual acuity was 20/20 or better in 93.5% of eyes. No eye lost more than 1 line of low-contrast, glare, and best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA). Supernormal vision (BSCVA of 20/10 or better) was achieved in 16.0% of eyes. The correction of higher-order aberrations (spherical aberration, coma) was insufficient, with an increase factor of the overall root-mean-square wavefront error of 1.44 +/- 0.74. Coma was better corrected than spherical aberration. CONCLUSIONS: Wavefront-guided LASIK is a promising technique that offers the potential to correct refractive errors, to improve visual acuity, and to increase the quality of vision, especially under mesopic conditions. Studies that include selective overcorrection of different Zernike components are needed to achieve better correction of the aberrations. Prospective controlled clinical studies must clarify the major benefits of wavefront-guided LASIK.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia and astigmatism: safety and efficacy
Sugar, A., Rapuano, C. J., Culbertson, W. W., Huang, D., Varley, G. A., Agapitos, P. J., de Luise, V. P., & Koch, D. D. (2002) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00966-6 · Cited by 408
Interaction between aberrations to improve or reduce visual performance
Applegate, R. A., Marsack, J. D., Ramos, R., & Sarver, E. J. (2003) · Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0886-3350(03)00334-1 · Cited by 403
Comparison of different excimer laser ablation frequencies (50, 200, and 500 Hz)
Winkler von Mohrenfels, C., Khoramnia, R., & Lohmann, C.-P. (2009) · Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology · doi:10.1007/s00417-009-1102-x · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Mrochen, M., Kaemmerer, M., & Seiler, T.
- Venue
- Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
- Published
- 2001-02
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 201-207
- ISSN
- 0146-2776 (ISSN-L)
- 0886-3350
- OpenAlex
- W2115922642
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical results of wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis 3 months after surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0886-3350(00)00827-0
- The paper
- Mrochen, M., Kaemmerer, M., & Seiler, T. (2001). Clinical results of wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis 3 months after surgery. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(00)00827-0
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.