Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy

Visual and military task performance

Denise S. Ryan, Rose K. Sia, Richard Stutzman, Joseph F. Pasternak, Robin S. Howard, Christopher L. Howell, Tana Maurer, Mark F. Torres, Kraig S. Bower

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare visual performance, marksmanship performance, and threshold target identification following wavefront-guided (WFG) versus wavefront-optimized (WFO) photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Methods: In this prospective, randomized clinical trial, active duty U.S. military Soldiers, age 21 or over, electing to undergo PRK were randomized to undergo WFG (n = 27) or WFO (n = 27) PRK for myopia or myopic astigmatism. Binocular visual performance was assessed preoperatively and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively: Super Vision Test high contrast, Super Vision Test contrast sensitivity (CS), and 25% contrast acuity with night vision goggle filter. CS function was generated testing at five spatial frequencies. Marksmanship performance in low light conditions was evaluated in a firing tunnel. Target detection and identification performance was tested for probability of identification of varying target sets and probability of detection of humans in cluttered environments. Results: Visual performance, CS function, marksmanship, and threshold target identification demonstrated no statistically significant differences over time between the two treatments. Exploratory regression analysis of firing range tasks at 6 months showed no significant differences or correlations between procedures. Regression analysis of vehicle and handheld probability of identification showed a significant association with pretreatment performance. Conclusions: Both WFG and WFO PRK results translate to excellent and comparable visual and military performance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e1636-e1644
JournalMilitary medicine
Volume182
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Photorefractive Keratectomy
Task Performance and Analysis
Contrast Sensitivity
Vision Tests
Night Vision
Regression Analysis
Eye Protective Devices
Astigmatism
Myopia
Military Personnel
Randomized Controlled Trials
Light

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Ryan, D. S., Sia, R. K., Stutzman, R., Pasternak, J. F., Howard, R. S., Howell, C. L., ... Bower, K. S. (2017). Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy: Visual and military task performance. Military medicine, 182(1), e1636-e1644. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-15-00576

Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy : Visual and military task performance. / Ryan, Denise S.; Sia, Rose K.; Stutzman, Richard; Pasternak, Joseph F.; Howard, Robin S.; Howell, Christopher L.; Maurer, Tana; Torres, Mark F.; Bower, Kraig S.

In: Military medicine, Vol. 182, No. 1, 01.01.2017, p. e1636-e1644.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ryan, DS, Sia, RK, Stutzman, R, Pasternak, JF, Howard, RS, Howell, CL, Maurer, T, Torres, MF & Bower, KS 2017, 'Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy: Visual and military task performance', Military medicine, vol. 182, no. 1, pp. e1636-e1644. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-15-00576
Ryan, Denise S. ; Sia, Rose K. ; Stutzman, Richard ; Pasternak, Joseph F. ; Howard, Robin S. ; Howell, Christopher L. ; Maurer, Tana ; Torres, Mark F. ; Bower, Kraig S. / Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy : Visual and military task performance. In: Military medicine. 2017 ; Vol. 182, No. 1. pp. e1636-e1644.
@article{cfb6a64845884d60bca21c807ae3bcbc,
title = "Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy: Visual and military task performance",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare visual performance, marksmanship performance, and threshold target identification following wavefront-guided (WFG) versus wavefront-optimized (WFO) photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Methods: In this prospective, randomized clinical trial, active duty U.S. military Soldiers, age 21 or over, electing to undergo PRK were randomized to undergo WFG (n = 27) or WFO (n = 27) PRK for myopia or myopic astigmatism. Binocular visual performance was assessed preoperatively and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively: Super Vision Test high contrast, Super Vision Test contrast sensitivity (CS), and 25{\%} contrast acuity with night vision goggle filter. CS function was generated testing at five spatial frequencies. Marksmanship performance in low light conditions was evaluated in a firing tunnel. Target detection and identification performance was tested for probability of identification of varying target sets and probability of detection of humans in cluttered environments. Results: Visual performance, CS function, marksmanship, and threshold target identification demonstrated no statistically significant differences over time between the two treatments. Exploratory regression analysis of firing range tasks at 6 months showed no significant differences or correlations between procedures. Regression analysis of vehicle and handheld probability of identification showed a significant association with pretreatment performance. Conclusions: Both WFG and WFO PRK results translate to excellent and comparable visual and military performance.",
author = "Ryan, {Denise S.} and Sia, {Rose K.} and Richard Stutzman and Pasternak, {Joseph F.} and Howard, {Robin S.} and Howell, {Christopher L.} and Tana Maurer and Torres, {Mark F.} and Bower, {Kraig S.}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.7205/MILMED-D-15-00576",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "182",
pages = "e1636--e1644",
journal = "Military Medicine",
issn = "0026-4075",
publisher = "Association of Military Surgeons of the US",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy

T2 - Visual and military task performance

AU - Ryan, Denise S.

AU - Sia, Rose K.

AU - Stutzman, Richard

AU - Pasternak, Joseph F.

AU - Howard, Robin S.

AU - Howell, Christopher L.

AU - Maurer, Tana

AU - Torres, Mark F.

AU - Bower, Kraig S.

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To compare visual performance, marksmanship performance, and threshold target identification following wavefront-guided (WFG) versus wavefront-optimized (WFO) photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Methods: In this prospective, randomized clinical trial, active duty U.S. military Soldiers, age 21 or over, electing to undergo PRK were randomized to undergo WFG (n = 27) or WFO (n = 27) PRK for myopia or myopic astigmatism. Binocular visual performance was assessed preoperatively and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively: Super Vision Test high contrast, Super Vision Test contrast sensitivity (CS), and 25% contrast acuity with night vision goggle filter. CS function was generated testing at five spatial frequencies. Marksmanship performance in low light conditions was evaluated in a firing tunnel. Target detection and identification performance was tested for probability of identification of varying target sets and probability of detection of humans in cluttered environments. Results: Visual performance, CS function, marksmanship, and threshold target identification demonstrated no statistically significant differences over time between the two treatments. Exploratory regression analysis of firing range tasks at 6 months showed no significant differences or correlations between procedures. Regression analysis of vehicle and handheld probability of identification showed a significant association with pretreatment performance. Conclusions: Both WFG and WFO PRK results translate to excellent and comparable visual and military performance.

AB - Purpose: To compare visual performance, marksmanship performance, and threshold target identification following wavefront-guided (WFG) versus wavefront-optimized (WFO) photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Methods: In this prospective, randomized clinical trial, active duty U.S. military Soldiers, age 21 or over, electing to undergo PRK were randomized to undergo WFG (n = 27) or WFO (n = 27) PRK for myopia or myopic astigmatism. Binocular visual performance was assessed preoperatively and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively: Super Vision Test high contrast, Super Vision Test contrast sensitivity (CS), and 25% contrast acuity with night vision goggle filter. CS function was generated testing at five spatial frequencies. Marksmanship performance in low light conditions was evaluated in a firing tunnel. Target detection and identification performance was tested for probability of identification of varying target sets and probability of detection of humans in cluttered environments. Results: Visual performance, CS function, marksmanship, and threshold target identification demonstrated no statistically significant differences over time between the two treatments. Exploratory regression analysis of firing range tasks at 6 months showed no significant differences or correlations between procedures. Regression analysis of vehicle and handheld probability of identification showed a significant association with pretreatment performance. Conclusions: Both WFG and WFO PRK results translate to excellent and comparable visual and military performance.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85008975710&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85008975710&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.7205/MILMED-D-15-00576

DO - 10.7205/MILMED-D-15-00576

M3 - Article

VL - 182

SP - e1636-e1644

JO - Military Medicine

JF - Military Medicine

SN - 0026-4075

IS - 1

ER -