The LASIK industry & the FDA have conspired since LASIK's inception to purposely withhold information vital to the public in making a truly informed LASIK decision. With, The hope is to show you what the industry and FDA would not and did not even think of doing until LASIK casualties started speaking out, and yet, they still did NOTHING.
Contact lens overrefraction variability in corneal power estimation after refractive surgery PDF Print E-mail
Tuesday, 21 March 2006 17:03

J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005 Dec;31(12):2287-92.  

Joslin CE, Koster J, Tu EY.  From the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences (Joslin, Koster, Tu) and School of Public Health (Joslin), Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois, USA.  

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and precision of the contact lens overrefraction (CLO) method in determining corneal refractive power in post-refractive-surgery eyes.  

SETTING: Refractive Surgery Service and Contact Lens Service, University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois, USA.  

METHODS: Fourteen eyes of 7 subjects who had a single myopic laser in situ keratomileusis procedure within 12 months with refractive stability were included in this prospective case series. The CLO method was compared with the historical method of predicting the corneal power using 4 different lens fitting strategies and 3 refractive pupil scan sizes (3 mm, 5 mm, and total pupil). Rigid lenses included 3 9.0 mm overall diameter lenses fit flat, steep, and an average of the 2, and a 15.0 mm diameter lens steep fit. Cycloplegic CLO was performed using the autorefractor function of the Nidek OPD-Scan ARK-10000. Results with each strategy were compared with the corneal power estimated with the historical method. The bias (mean of the difference), 95% limits of agreement, and difference versus mean plots for each strategy are presented.  

RESULTS: In each subject, the CLO-estimated corneal power varied based on lens fit. On average, the bias between CLO and historical methods ranged from -0.38 to +2.42 diopters (D) and was significantly different from 0 in all but 3 strategies. Substantial variability in precision existed between fitting strategies, with the range of the 95% limits of agreement approximating 0.50 D in 2 strategies and 2.59 D in the worst-case scenario. The least precise fitting strategy was use of flat-fitting 9.0 mm diameter lenses.

CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and precision of the CLO method of estimating corneal power in post-refractive-surgery eyes was highly variable on the basis of how rigid lense were fit. One of the most commonly used fitting strategies in clinical practice-flat-fitting a 9.0 diameter lens-resulted in the poorest accuracy and precision. Results also suggest use of large-diameter lenses may improve outcomes.

For the latest news on contact lenses: