4.4 Article

Is the axial length a risk factor for post-LASIK myopic regression?

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-020-04990-4

关键词

Axial length; LASIK; Myopia; Correlation; Regression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that patients with longer axial length preoperatively are at higher risk of myopic regression after LASIK, accounting for nearly half of the cases.
Purpose To assess the relationship between the axial length and post-LASIK regression in myopic patients. Methods This is a retrospective case series study conducted at a private eye centre, Ismailia, Egypt. The clinical records of the patients, who experienced LASIK to correct myopia from January 2016 to January 2018, were analysed for myopic regression. The patients were operated on, examined, and followed-up 1 year by one surgeon (AAG). Results This study included 1219 patients (2316 eyes) with myopia. Mean +/- SD of pre-operative spherical equivalent (SE) was - 4.3 +/- 2.1D, range (- 0.50 to - 10.0D). Mean +/- SD age of the patients was 26.4 +/- 6.8 years, range (21 to 50 years). Male to female ratio was 30.5 to 69.5%. The cumulative incidence rate of myopic regression according to the medical records of the patients was 25.12% (582 eyes out of total 2316 eyes) along the 2 years of this study (12.6% per year). Of the total patients, 14.94% had pre-operative high myopia, 35.84% had pre-operative moderate myopia, and 49.2% had pre-operative low myopia. Of the patients with myopic regression, 52.6% had pre-operative high myopia, 34% had pre-operative moderate myopia, and 13.4% had pre-operative low myopia. The mean +/- SD of the axial length of the patients with myopic regression was 26.6 +/- 0.44 mm, range (26.0 to 27.86 mm), while the mean +/- SD of the axial length of other patients with stable refraction was 24.38 +/- 0.73 mm, range (22.9 to 25.9 mm) (t test statistic = 69.3; P value < 0.001). Conclusions Pre-operative high axial length increases the risk of myopic regression after LASIK.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据