FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3120777191> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3120777191 endingPage "142" @default.
• W3120777191 startingPage "141" @default.
• W3120777191 abstract "Jun et al. should be congratulated on their important study comparing clinical outcomes between vector planning (VP) and conventional manifest refraction (MR) for the treatment of myopic astigmatism with small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).1,2 The findings of this ground-breaking study demonstrated statistically significant better outcomes for the VP-treated patients for both refractive cylinder and corneal astigmatism as well as internal aberrations as quantified by ocular residual astigmatism (ORA) than those treated by conventional MR. Angle of error, correction index (CI), and linearity of slope of line of best fit between surgically induced astigmatism vector and target-induced astigmatism vector were also significantly better. With such clear-cut superiority of the VP group, it is difficult to rationalize such a problematic conclusion recommending a requirement for a nomogram adjustment. A nomogram adjustment means that this Zeiss SMILE device is systematically over or under correcting astigmatism across ALL treatments—which is incorrect according to the results in this study in which the overall CI is very close to the ideal 1.0. The authors suggest a nomogram adjustment for the cylinder treatment of the MR group alone. If a nomogram adjustment was to be applied to the MR group, which has a CI of 0.88 by refraction, then the overcorrection by corneal values of 1.24 (arithmetic mean of 1.06 for both CI) would be further increased to cause adverse corneal outcomes for the MR group. When extended to the VP group, this would also adversely affect the excellent outcomes achieved, with the CIs of both refractive (1.04) and corneal (0.98) analyses (arithmetic mean 1.01) being optimal. Just as treatment is shown to have benefit by an ideal balance between corneal and refractive astigmatism parameters, so too does the analysis postoperatively of nomogram adjustments benefit by both being taken into account as performed below. CI analysis: (1) corneal measurements (from Table 3) MR 1.24 VP 0.98 (2) refractive measurements (from Supp. Table 2 calculated for zero target) MR 0.88 VP 1.04. The statistically significant difference between MR and VP is not due to any nomogram adjustment being required, but rather the VP method of incorporating both corneal and refractive astigmatism parameters into the treatment profile, leading to beneficially reduced astigmatism, cylinder, and internal aberration outcomes. Furthermore, the stated solution to resolve differences that exist between corneal and refractive values by repeating the MR with more care or accuracy belies the fact that care was likely taken with the first test and a significant proportion of eyes will still have ORAs greater than 0.75 diopters after retesting. This study reconfirms the findings by Arbelaez et al. in demonstrating better outcomes for VP with less corneal astigmatism remaining postoperatively, compared with treatment using MR parameters.3 This important benefit was achieved without compromising refractive cylinder outcomes. However, it seems the authors here may have misinterpreted the astigmatism analyses of their own study in suggesting a nomogram adjustment would provide benefit when in fact from their own published figures, as tabulated above, the Zeiss SMILE device without any correction adjustments is performing excellently by examining both corneal and refractive astigmatism parameter analyses. With several studies now demonstrating the benefits of VP when treating astigmatism, consideration should be given to VP being adopted as the standard of care in refractive surgery for the treatment of myopic astigmatism." @default.
• W3120777191 created "2021-01-18" @default.
• W3120777191 creator A5027048426 @default.
• W3120777191 date "2021-01-01" @default.
• W3120777191 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W3120777191 title "Comment on: Comparison of clinical outcomes between vector planning and manifest refraction planning in small-incision lenticule extraction for myopic astigmatism" @default.
• W3120777191 cites W2058089771 @default.
• W3120777191 cites W2783870335 @default.
• W3120777191 cites W3005080242 @default.
• W3120777191 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000511" @default.
• W3120777191 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33901096" @default.
• W3120777191 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3120777191 type Work @default.
• W3120777191 sameAs 3120777191 @default.
• W3120777191 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3120777191 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3120777191 hasAuthorship W3120777191A5027048426 @default.
• W3120777191 hasBestOaLocation W31207771911 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConcept C109821595 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConcept C118487528 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConcept C119767625 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConcept C120665830 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConcept C205318122 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConcept C2776882836 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConcept C2777183516 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConcept C2778257484 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConcept C2778609529 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConcept C2781093698 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConcept C2781135284 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConcept C34626388 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConceptScore W3120777191C109821595 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConceptScore W3120777191C118487528 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConceptScore W3120777191C119767625 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConceptScore W3120777191C120665830 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConceptScore W3120777191C121332964 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConceptScore W3120777191C126322002 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConceptScore W3120777191C141071460 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConceptScore W3120777191C205318122 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConceptScore W3120777191C2776882836 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConceptScore W3120777191C2777183516 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConceptScore W3120777191C2778257484 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConceptScore W3120777191C2778609529 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConceptScore W3120777191C2781093698 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConceptScore W3120777191C2781135284 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConceptScore W3120777191C34626388 @default.
• W3120777191 hasConceptScore W3120777191C71924100 @default.
• W3120777191 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W3120777191 hasLocation W31207771911 @default.
• W3120777191 hasLocation W31207771912 @default.
• W3120777191 hasOpenAccess W3120777191 @default.
• W3120777191 hasPrimaryLocation W31207771911 @default.
• W3120777191 hasRelatedWork W2063828319 @default.
• W3120777191 hasRelatedWork W2284158853 @default.
• W3120777191 hasRelatedWork W2411161282 @default.
• W3120777191 hasRelatedWork W2436773183 @default.
• W3120777191 hasRelatedWork W2765748290 @default.
• W3120777191 hasRelatedWork W2975286759 @default.
• W3120777191 hasRelatedWork W2977876371 @default.
• W3120777191 hasRelatedWork W3023818892 @default.
• W3120777191 hasRelatedWork W4206779967 @default.
• W3120777191 hasRelatedWork W4290611144 @default.
• W3120777191 hasVolume "47" @default.
• W3120777191 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3120777191 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3120777191 magId "3120777191" @default.
• W3120777191 workType "article" @default.