Interpreting Laser Eye Surgery Results

When selecting a provider for Laser Eye Surgery, or when contemplating whether to undergo the treatment, it is crucial to familiarize yourself with the outcomes of each clinic. This knowledge aids in understanding how successful they have been with patients having similar prescriptions and gauging the likelihood of achieving your desired results.

However, deciphering these results can be challenging and confusing for individuals who are not well-versed in statistics. So, how does one go about interpreting Laser Eye Surgery results?

The significance of transparently publishing Laser Eye Surgery results cannot be overstated. While readily accessible results can indicate a reputable clinic, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are easily understandable. Advertised results might sometimes be misleading, underscoring the importance of knowing what to look for.

Typically, Laser Eye Surgery results studies include three key measures:
1. The percentage of patients achieving 20/20 (6/6) vision or better.
2. The percentage of patients achieving 20/40 (6/12) vision or better.
3. The percentage of patients achieving within one dioptre of zero prescription (emmetropia), indicating a final prescription of +1.00 or -1.00.

These categories are often further broken down into prescription ranges (e.g., “the percentage of patients with a prescription of -3.00D who achieved 20/20 or better”). This breakdown is crucial for prospective patients to assess their likelihood of success by comparing outcomes with individuals having similar prescriptions.

For instance, if a person has a high prescription of -8.00D, focusing on data for patients with -3.00D would be misleading. At London Vision Clinic, we consistently present our results through graphs designed to elucidate what patients can expect from Laser Eye Surgery at our facility. Our approach to publishing outcomes aims to simplify the interpretation of Laser Eye Surgery results.

Moreover, if uncertainty persists, our expert surgeon, Mr. Glenn Carp, emphasizes in the accompanying video that our patient care coordinators are always available to address any queries. Unfortunately, not all clinics adhere to the same level of integrity when showcasing their results, and some may even manipulate their data.

How standardised reporting could help

When it comes to specialised treatments such as refractive surgery, the value of publishing the outcomes for specific techniques and prescriptions cannot be overstated. However, things can get confusing when comparing results between several factors, such as different:

Techniques
Procedures
Technology
Surgeons
Clinics

The value of publishing Laser Eye Surgery results can be maximised when outcomes are comparable to other published results – such as those from other clinics. This can best be achieved by peer-reviewed journals strictly adhering to a universal standard or format for reporting outcomes.

A Standardised Approach to Reporting

In 2000, world-renowned cornea and refractive specialist George O. Waring III, in association with the editorial staffs of the Journal of Refractive Surgery and the Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, published an article titled “Standard Graphs for Reporting Refractive Surgery“.

This article set out a concise six-graph format for reporting clinical outcomes, covering four main areas: accuracy, efficacy, safety and stability. Despite this, many authors continued to publish refractive surgery outcomes based on different analysis and formatting methods. This has helped contribute to ongoing difficulties when comparing studies.

That’s why, over the years, our founder and lead surgeon, as well as a section editor and member of the board for the Journal of Refractive Surgery, Professor Dan Reinstein, has made it his mission to optimise the reporting of refractive surgery results.

Some of Professor Dan’s contributions

By improving the set of Standard Graphs (as published in an editorial in 2009), and lobbying the most prominent refractive journals to enforce this standard, Professor Dan has largely helped to achieve this aim. In January 2011, three of the top journals (Journal of Refractive Surgery, Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, and Cornea) published a joint editorial stating their commitment to requiring these graphs to be included in any future refractive surgery outcomes paper.

Since then, improvements in reporting have continued to be made. These improvements should make it easier than ever before to compare clinics, and even surgeons, to ensure you have the very best opportunity to achieve the best possible results.

If you’d like to learn more about Laser Eye Surgery results at London Vision Clinic, get in touch with one of our friendly clinic coordinators or Book a Consultation today.

#Interpreting #Laser #Eye #Surgery #Results #London #Vision #Clinic
Source link