Objective and subjective preoperative refraction techniques for wavefront-optimized and wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis.

Purpose: To determine which of 3 methods for measuring preoperative refractive error yields the best refractive outcomes after wavefront-guided (Visx Star S4) or wavefront-optimized (WaveLight Allegretto Wave) excimer laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).
Setting: Emory Eye Center and Emory Vision, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Methods: This retrospective analysis of LASIK, performed from June to December 2007, analyzed sphere, cylinder, and spherical equivalent (SE) refractions generated from 3 methods (manifest refraction, aberrometer autorefraction [CustomVue WaveScan], corneal analyzer autorefraction [Nidek ARK-10000 OPD]), actual programmed treatment, and absolute deviation from ideal treatment (deviation) for each technique.
Results: In the wavefront-guided group (63 eyes, 33 patients), manifest refraction and aberrometer autorefraction generated similar deviation for sphere and SE; both were significantly better than corneal analyzer autorefraction (P= .02 and P= .03, respectively). Aberrometer autorefraction generated less cylinder deviation than the other methods (both P= .003). In the wavefront-optimized group (61 eyes, 36 patients), manifest refraction generated less deviation for sphere and SE than aberrometer autorefraction or corneal analyzer autorefraction (sphere: P= .005 and P= .009, respectively; SE: P= .005 and P= .002, respectively). Manifest refraction and aberrometer autorefraction cylinder generated similar deviation, while aberrometer autorefraction was less than corneal analyzer autorefraction (P= .041).
Conclusions: Overall, manifest refraction was most accurate in generating postoperative emmetropia with both laser treatments; however, aberrometer autorefraction produced the least cylinder deviation for wavefront-guided treatment. Corneal analyzer autorefraction produced the least accurate results with both lasers.