P970043/S10 Alcon LADARvision Excimer Laser System FDA Review and Questions for Ophthalmic Devices Panel August 1, 2002.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Evaluation of Higher Order Aberrations in Eyes with Dohlman/Boston Keratoprosthesis and Comparison with Penetrating Keratoplasty and Normal Eyes K.Stasi.
Advertisements

MYOPIA, ASTIGMATISM, HYPEROPIA… PERSONALIZED TREATMENT Bernard Mathys, MD Secretary-general of the Belgian Society of Cataract & Refractive Surgery.
RAY TRACING & WAVEFRONT ANALYSIS USING THE TRACEY SYSTEM Donald R. Sanders, M.D., Ph.D. Center For Clinical Research.
1 Comparison of bitoric with monotoric laser in situ keratomileusis for the correction of myopic astigmatism with the Nidek EC-5000 Laser. By Mohamed Abdul-Rahman.
Comparison of Visual Outcomes With Toric IOL and With Limbal Relaxing Incisions in Cataract Surgery Eriko Fukuyama, MD Fukuyama Eye Clinic Fukuoka, Japan.
Quality Control in Refractive Surgery
PMA P Phakic IOL for the correction of Myopia.
Tarek Abdel-Wahab, MD Clear Vision Center Cairo,Egypt Clinical Consultant of Schwind and technolase.
Correlation Of Corneal Contour With Higher Order Ocular Aberrations (HOA) In Indian Eyes Manish Chaudhary MS Amit Gupta MS Advanced Eye Centre, Postgraduate.
Laser Bridge AK: Laser Bridge AK: Novel Architecture for Laser Astigmatic Keratotomy Comparison and Validation of Patient-Specific Computational Modeling.
Comparison of Early Outcomes of Topo-Guided PRK With Two Refractive Lasers WCC 2015 San Diego, California Simon P. Holland MB. FRCSC,FRCS,MRCP 1, 2, A,
Ruth Lapid-Gortzak MD PhD 1,2, Jan Willem van der Linden BOpt 2, and Ivanka J. van der Meulen MD 1,2 1 Department of Ophthalmology, Academic Medical Center,
Laser Vision Correction for Myopia, Myopic Astigmatism, Hyperopia and Hyperopic Astigmatism with CustomVis Solid State Laser (213nm) THE ROYAL AUSTRALIAN.
Alex P. Lange The author has no financial interest to disclose.
PMA P010018/SUPPLEMENT 5 FDA PRESENTATION. Indication for Use Temporary induction of myopia (-1D to -2D) to improve near vision in the non- dominant eye.
Wavefront Sensing of the Human Eye
Nizar S Abdelfattah, M.D.1, Marina Israel2, Nermin Osman, M.D.3,
Professor Ioannis Pallikaris MD, PhD.  Different mediums (Nd:YAG Crystals vs ArF Gas)  Less optics for the shaping of the pulse  No use of toxic gasses.
Comparative Evaluation of Photorefractive Keratectomy With Use of Excimer Laser and Solid-State Laser System G. A. Kontadakis; G. A. Kounis; G. D. Kymionis;
Characterization of Higher Order Ocular Aberrations (HOA) In ‘Normal’ Versus Myopic Eyes To Study The Effect Of Myopia On Higher Order Aberrations Amit.
Psych 221/EE362 Applied Vision and Imaging Systems
Comparison of Wavefront and Corneal Aberration Changes after Advanced Corneal Surface Ablation and Femtosecond Thin Flap LASIK Tahra AlMahmoud, MBBS 1,
A Fellow Eye Comparison of Aberrations, Modulation Transfer Function and Contrast Sensitivity After AcrySof IQ and AcrySof Natural IOL Implantation. Mayank.
ASCRS 08 Changes Of Higher Order Aberrations After Excimer Laser Treatment For Moderate Myopia by Means of Preoperative Wavefront Aberration Levels using.
The authors have no financial interest in the subject matter of this poster Yinfei Xu, Peter S. Hersh, MD, David S. Chu, MD Institutional Affiliations.
A New Definition of Refraction: Basics and Beyond Austin Roorda, Ph.D. Unversity of Houston College of Optometry.
March 2011 Bascom Palmer Eye Institute University of Miami Elaine Wu, M.D. Ana Paula Canto, M.D. William Culbertson, M.D. Sonia Yoo, M.D. Financial disclosure:
P91: Clinical Performance of Phakic Angle-Supported Investigational IOL in Prospective Global Trials, ASCRS 2010, Boston P91: Clinical performance of phakic.
Evaluation of refractive error measurements obtained by three different aberrometers Radha Ram, BA Li Wang, MD, PhD Mitchell P. Weikert, MD, MS Disclosure:
LADARVision4000 Vs VISX CustomVue LADARVision4000 Vs VISX CustomVue CustomCornea CustomCornea A Comparison of Wavefront Guided Refractive Surgery outcomes.
M. Vokrojova MD, M. Vokrojova MD, D. Sivekova MD, L. Wagnerova MD D. Sivekova MD, L. Wagnerova MD Prof. P. Kuchynka MD, PhD Prof. P. Kuchynka MD, PhD The.
Refractive Accuracy of LASIK Using the IntraLase and Zyoptix BACKGROUND Wavefront guided customized lasik procedures are designed to correct both lower.
«ASTANA VISION», ASTANA city, Republic of KAZAKHSTAN Igor Remesnikov, Vladimir Kim Refractive and visual outcomes after Femto-SubBowman’s Keratomileusis.
Myoung Joon Kim, MD / Sara Yoon, MD Tracy Purcell, PhD / David J Schanzlin, MD L aser In Situ Keratomileusis versus Photorefractive Keratectomy for the.
Analysis of Ocular Wavefront Aberrations in Post Penetrating Keratoplasty Eyes with Two Different Hartmann-Shack Aberrometers Adriana S. Forseto 1, MD;
Michael J. Endl, M.D. The author of this poster has no financial interest in the subject matter of this poster. Early Results of Static and Dynamic Iris.
Refractec ViewPoint™ CK System for the Treatment of Spherical Hyperopia Sheryl Berman, MD Medical Officer FDA/CDRH/ODE/DOED.
Evaluation of Corneal Tomography in Primary Pterygium Sahil Goel, MD (Presenting Author), Murugesan Vanathi MD *The authors have no financial interests.
10 year follow up of LASIK surgery for low to high levels of myopia Qasim Qasem FRCS, Caitriona Kirwan MRCOpth, Michael O’Keefe FRCS. Institutional Affiliations:
Futoshi Taketani, MD,PhD,
Alex P. Lange The author has no financial interest to disclose.
Ocular functional optical zone following hyperopic LASIK/PRK: Analysis based on polychromatic retinal image quality Mitchell P. Weikert, MD Li Wang, MD,
S. Lee/M.Kim 2010 M. Kim 1, H. Lee 1, S. Lee 1,, S.D. Lee 1 1 ASA-Vision Clinics Seoul Comparative Analysis Preliminary Results of.
Wavefront-guided Ablation Retreatment in Myopic Eyes Engy M Mohamed MD, Orkun Muftuoglu MD, R.Wayne Bowman MD, V. Vinod Mootha MD, H. Dwight Cavanagh MD,PhD,
The authors have no financial interest in the subject matter of this poster. Cesar Bernilla MD, Maria A. Henriquez MD, Luis Izquierdo MD Instituto de ojos.
Investigation of Multifocal Toric IOLs to Compensate for Corneal Astigmatism and to Provide Near, Intermediate, and Distance Vision José L. Rincón, MD.
Preliminary Results after Cataract Surgery with the Aspheric Acrysof ReSTOR IOL to Correct Presbyopia Meeting of the ASCRS Chicago 8-10 February 2007 R.M.M.A.
Custom Topographic Neutralizing Technique (TNT) with Topographically-Guided (TG) laser to correct complications David T.C Lin Simon Holland ASCRS 2010.
Toric IOLs: wavefront aberrometry and quality of life Mencucci Rita Giordano Cristina, Stiko Ermelinda, Miranda Paolo, Eleonora Favuzza, Ugo Menchini Authors.
Omni-Focal Treatment for Correction of Presbyopia in Hyperopes: 1 Year Results Efekan Coskunseven, Baha Toygar, Serife Atun, Haluk Talu, Ebru Arslan Dunya.
Presbyopia CT Zyoptix Hyperopia Advanced (Rochester) Nomogram Scott MacRae MD Professor of Ophthalmology Professor of Visual Science University of Rochester.
THE EBK PROCEDURE FOR CORRECTION OF REFRACTIVE ERRORS
"Mix and Match" approach implantation
Corneal CXL in Pediatric Patients with Progressive Keratoconus Stephanie Wise, Christian Diaz, Karolien Termote, Paul J. Dubord, Martin McCarthy, Sonia.
Postoperative Uncorrected Visual Acuity (UCVA) versus Preoperative Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) with the WaveLight Refractive Suite (Excimer EX500.
CustomVue vs Conventional LASIK: one year study
Wavefront Optimized Retreatment after Prior Wavefront
A Comparison of Visual Acuity, Refractive Outcomes, and Satisfaction Between LASIK Performed with a Microkeratome and a Femto Laser Nauman hashmani (MBBS),
L. Espandar, MD ; M. D. Mifflin, MD; M. Moshirfar MD, FACS
No financial interest for all authors
Conventional LASIK V/S Zyoptix LASIK
Preoperative Distribution of Higher Order Aberrations in Patients Undergoing LASIK Perry S. Binder, MS MD.
Wavefront Correction of high refractive errors
SurgiVision® DataLink Study Group
Dr Haralabos Eleftheriadis, M.D Ultralase Clinic Bristol UK
Mohamed Abdelrahman Awadalla,FRCS Magrabi Eye Hospital Cairo - Egypt
Aspherical ablation profiles in excimer laser treatments
Marotte D, Denoyer A, Pisella PJ.
Stephen G Slade, MD The Laser Center of Houston Houston, Texas
Presentation transcript:

P970043/S10 Alcon LADARvision Excimer Laser System FDA Review and Questions for Ophthalmic Devices Panel August 1, 2002

FDA Review Team:  Jan Callaway (team leader)  Malvina Eydelman (primary clinical)  Gene Hilmantel (vision, clinical)  Bruce Drum (vision, clinical, engineering)  Dexiu Shi (vision, engineering)  Woody Ediger (engineering)  Lilly Yue (statistics)

Introduction  FDA has no clinical questions for the Panel regarding basic safety or effectiveness.  FDA wishes to ask the Panel’s advice on issues specific to higher-order aberration treatments: –analysis and interpretation of the results; –information needed to support specific effectiveness claims; and –labeling information.

Comparison of Custom and Conventional Treatment Outcomes  The outcomes of the 139-eye effectiveness cohort were compared to the outcomes of 47 conventionally treated eyes at 6 months after surgery.

Comparison of Custom and Conventional Treatment Outcomes  Higher-order aberrations were smaller after Custom than conventional treatment.  Aberrations were reduced (pre-op to 6 months) in 38% of Custom eyes vs. 14% of conventional eyes.  Custom treatment improved image quality as much as  0.2 D reduction of spherical blur.

Comparison of Custom and Conventional Treatment Outcomes  Relative to pre-op, mean post-op contrast sensitivity was log unit higher for Custom eyes than for conventional eyes.  Relative to pre-op, mean contrast sensitivity increased for Custom eyes and decreased for conventional eyes.

Questions About Custom/Conventional Comparison 1.What differences (if any) between Custom and conventional outcomes are clinically and/or functionally significant? What labeling claims are supported by these differences. 2.Are additional clinical data, analyses or criteria needed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of Custom and conventional treatments with regard to higher order aberrations and visual function?

Analysis of Higher-Order Aberrations  Zernike Polynomial Expansion Analysis –2 nd order (defocus, astigmatism) –3 rd order (coma, trifoil) –4 th order (spherical aberration, secondary astigmatism, tetrafoil)  Root Mean Square (RMS) Variability –Standard deviation of wavefront elevation –Overall vs. term-by-term RMS

Analysis of Higher-Order Aberrations  Functional significance of higher order aberrations is not always evident.  Different Zernike terms with same RMS may have different effects.  Elimination of all aberrations may not be optimal; e.g., some spherical aberration may be beneficial.  Zernike parameters depend on pupil size.  Can Higher-Order Aberrations be compared to “equivalent defocus”?

Questions About Aberration Analysis 3.What information about measurement, analysis, and correction of higher order aberrations is needed in the labeling to inform physicians and patients about safety and effectiveness of CustomCornea treatments?

Current Stability Criteria  Refractive change ≤1.0 D for ≥95% of eyes between 1 and 3 months or over a minimum 3- month period thereafter.  Mean rate of refractive change ≤0.5 diopter/year.  Rate of refractive change is zero or decreasing over time at stability.  95% confidence interval around mean change includes zero.  Time after stability confirms other criteria.

Stability of Aberration Corrections  Existing stability criteria are insensitive to changes in higher order aberrations.  Effects of correcting higher order aberrations are smaller than effects of correcting sphere and cylinder, suggesting that sphere and cylinder instabilities could disrupt higher order corrections.

Questions About Stability Criteria 4.What additional stability criteria are needed for higher order aberration treatments? 5.Should stability criteria be more stringent for wavefront-based treatments than for conventional treatments?

FDA Questions for Panel 1.What differences (if any) between Custom and conventional outcomes are clinically and/or functionally significant? What labeling claims are supported by these differences.

FDA Questions for Panel 2.Are additional clinical data, analyses or criteria needed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of Custom and conventional treatments with regard to higher order aberrations and visual function?

FDA Questions for Panel 3.What information about measurement, analysis, and correction of higher order aberrations is needed in the labeling to inform physicians and patients about safety and effectiveness of CustomCornea treatments?

FDA Questions for Panel 4.What additional stability criteria are needed for higher order aberration treatments?

FDA Questions for Panel 5.Should stability criteria be more stringent for wavefront-based treatments than for conventional treatments?