Role of preoperative cycloplegic refraction in LASIK treatment of hyperopia

  • Andreas FringsEmail author
  • Johannes Steinberg
  • Vasyl Druchkiv
  • Stephan J. Linke
  • Toam Katz
Refractive Surgery



Previous studies have suggested that, to improve refractive predictability in hyperopic LASIK treatments, preoperative cycloplegic or manifest refraction, or a combination of both, could be used in the laser nomogram. We set out to investigate (1) the prevalence of a high difference between manifest and cycloplegic spherical equivalent in hyperopic eyes preoperatively, and (2) the related predictability of postoperative keratometry.


Retrospective cross-sectional data analysis of consecutive treated 186 eyes from 186 consecutive hyperopic patients (mean age 42 [±12] years) were analyzed. Excimer ablation for all eyes was performed using a mechanical microkeratome (SBK, Moria, France) and an Allegretto excimer laser platform. Two groups were defined according to the difference between manifest and cycloplegic spherical equivalent which was defined as ≥1.00 diopter (D); the data was analyzed according to refractive outcome in terms of refractive predictability, efficacy, and safety.


In 24 eyes (13 %), a preoperative difference of ≥1.00D between manifest spherical equivalent and cycloplegic spherical equivalent (= MCD) occurred. With increasing preoperative MCD, the postoperative achieved spherical equivalent showed hyperopic regression after 3 months. There was no statistically significant effect of age (accommodation) or optical zone size on the achieved spherical equivalent.


A difference of ≥1.00D occurs in about 13 % of hyperopia cases. We suggest that hyperopic correction should be based on the manifest spherical equivalent in eyes with preoperative MCD <1.00D. If the preoperative MCD is ≥1.00D, treatment may produce manifest undercorrection, and therefore we advise that the patient should be warrned about lower predictability, and suggest basing conclusions on the arithmetic mean calculated from the preoperative manifest and cycloplegic spheres.


Hyperopia LASIK Cycloplegic refraction Manifest refraction Refractive predictability 


Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


No funding was received for this research.

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Gatinel D, Malet J, Hoang-Xuan T, Azar DT (2004) Corneal asphericity change after excimer laser hyperopic surgery: theoretical effects on corneal profiles and corresponding Zernike expansions. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:1349–1359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huang D, Tang M, Shekhar R (2003) Mathematical model of corneal surface smoothing after laser refractive surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 135:267–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roberts C (2002) Biomechanics of the cornea and wavefront-guided laser refractive surgery. J Refract Surg 18:589–592Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alió J, Galal A, Ayala MJ, Artola A (2006) Hyperopic LASIK with Esiris/Schwind technology. J Refract Surg 22:772–781PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Llovet F, Galal A, Benitez-del-Castillo JM, Ortega J, Martin C, Baviera J (2009) One-year results of excimer laser in situ keratomileusis for hyperopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:1156–1165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Waring GO 3rd, Fant B, Stevens G, Phillips S, Fischer J, Tanchel N, Schanzer C, Narvaez J, Chayet A (2008) Laser in situ keratomileusis for spherical hyperopia and hyperopic astigmatism using the NIDEK EC-5000 excimer laser. J Refract Surg 24:123–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aslanides IM, Mukherjee AN (2013) Adjuvant corneal crosslinking to prevent hyperopic LASIK regression. Clin Ophthalmol 7:637–641PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spadea L, Sabetti L, D’Alessandri L, Balestrazzi E (2006) Photorefractive keratectomy and LASIK for the correction of hyperopia: 2-year follow-up. J Refract Surg 22:131–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cobo-Soriano R, Llovet F, González-López F, Domingo B, Gómez-Sanz F, Baviera J (2002) Factors that influence outcomes of hyperopic laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:1530–1538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zaldivar R, Oscherow S, Bains HS (2005) Five techniques for improving outcomes of hyperopic LASIK. J Refract Surg 21:628–632Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zadok D, Raifkup F, Landau D, Frucht-Pery J (2003) Long-term evaluation of hyperopic laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:2181–2188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mrochen M, Donitzky C, Wüllner C, Löffler J (2004) Wavefront-optimized ablation profiles: theoretical background. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:775–785CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Torricelli AA, Bechara SJ, Wilson SE (2014) Screening of refractive surgery candidates for LASIK and PRK. Cornea 33:1051–1055CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Frings
    • 1
    Email author
  • Johannes Steinberg
    • 1
  • Vasyl Druchkiv
    • 1
  • Stephan J. Linke
    • 1
  • Toam Katz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE)HamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations