Strike Point System to Determine Candidacy for LASIK

  • Slides: 12
Download presentation
Strike Point System to Determine Candidacy for LASIK or PRK Lewis R. Groden, MD

Strike Point System to Determine Candidacy for LASIK or PRK Lewis R. Groden, MD Monte Sichelman, MD The authors have no financial interests in any of the material in this presentation

Strike Point System to Determine Candidacy for Lasik or PRK Lewis R Groden MD,

Strike Point System to Determine Candidacy for Lasik or PRK Lewis R Groden MD, Monte Sichelman, MD Purpose: To present the Strike Point System (SPS) algorithm, a practice pattern codification, used to determine candidacy for lasik or prk, and compare this system to those published by Randleman and Tabbara. Methods: SPS has been applied to more than 13, 000 patients over the past 3 years to determine candidacy for laser vision correction. Points are assigned based on age, pachymetry, topography pattern, Orbscan posterior float elevation, and the inferiorsuperior difference on the keratometric map. 0 -1 strike per eye makes the patient a candidate for lasik, 2 strikes prk, and three or more strikes a non-candidate. SPS was compared to Tabbara’s and Randleman’s systems in 22 patients deemed to be noncandidates, 20 prk patients, and 26 lasik patients. SPS was also applied retrospectively to 13 cases of post-lasik ectasia. Results: For all three groups (non-candidate, prk, lasik) SPS and Randleman’s system were in excellent agreement for all patients. In Tabbara’s system most patients fell into the middle risk group. There was poor correlation between SPS/Randleman scores and the Tabbara score. For the ectasia cases, at least one eye of each patient had a SPS score of 3 or more strikes. Conclusions: SPS is a useful, easy to apply tool to help determine candidacy for lasik or prk. It is in good agreement with the system published by Randleman. Tabbara’s system is difficult to apply, places most patients in one risk group, and has poor agreement with SPS and Randleman.

Tabbara KF, Kotb AA Ophthalmology 2006; 113: 1618 -1622 • Retrospective, comparative analysis of

Tabbara KF, Kotb AA Ophthalmology 2006; 113: 1618 -1622 • Retrospective, comparative analysis of 37 • • patients who developed post lasik ectasia out of 148 myopic patients (SE -4 to -8 D) (111 no ectasia age/gender matched controls) 6 parameters, each given a grade 1 to 3 Total grade ≤ 7: no ectasia 8 -12: 16/27 (59%) ectasia > 12: 21/21 (100%) ectasia

Tabbara KF, Kotb AA Ophthalmology 2006; 113: 1618 -1622 Grade 1 • Keratometry •

Tabbara KF, Kotb AA Ophthalmology 2006; 113: 1618 -1622 Grade 1 • Keratometry • Oblique Cylinder • Pachymetry • Posterior surface • • < 45 <0. 5 >520 <30 elevation I-S difference <1. 0 Post BSF/Ant BSF <1. 20 Grade 2 45 -47 0. 5 -1. 5 500 -520 30 -40 1. 0 -1. 4 1. 20 -1. 27 Grade 3 >47 >1. 5 <500 >40 >1. 4 >1. 27

SPS vs Tabbara • Non candidates (topo): 22 patients • PRK: 20 patients •

SPS vs Tabbara • Non candidates (topo): 22 patients • PRK: 20 patients • LASIK: 26 patients • Random, retrospective chart review

Strike Point System score Noncandidate ≥ 3 0 # patients 22 4* PRK LASIK

Strike Point System score Noncandidate ≥ 3 0 # patients 22 4* PRK LASIK Tabarra score # patients >12 14 8 -12 8 ≤ 7 6 8 -12 13 >12 1 2 16 ≤ 1 25 ≤ 7 2 2 1 8 -12 24 * secondary to occupation or inadequate residual stromal bed thickness

Randleman et al. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 37 -50

Randleman et al. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 37 -50

SPS vs Randleman • Non-candidates 10 patients • PRK 15 patients • Lasik 20

SPS vs Randleman • Non-candidates 10 patients • PRK 15 patients • Lasik 20 patients • Random, retrospective chart review

Strike Point System Noncandidate PRK LASIK Randleman score # patients ≥ 3 10 ≥

Strike Point System Noncandidate PRK LASIK Randleman score # patients ≥ 3 10 ≥ 4 3 ≤ 3 12 3 1 ≤ 2 19 2 ≤ 1 15 20

Ectasia • 13 patients • Retrospective review of submitted cases • SPS: ≥ 3

Ectasia • 13 patients • Retrospective review of submitted cases • SPS: ≥ 3 strikes in at least 1 eye of each patient

Conclusions • Tabbara et al. - article poorly defines parameters - not sensitive enough

Conclusions • Tabbara et al. - article poorly defines parameters - not sensitive enough to be useful • SPS has good agreement with system published by Randleman et al. • SPS is useful and easy to apply