{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0397982062780269, 'fraction_numerical': 0.043721973094170405, 'mean_word_length': 5.197916666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Accuracy of the Preoperative Predicted Percentage of Tissue Altered Calculation in Refractive Surgery Planning for Myopic LASIK.

PURPOSE
To determine the reliability of the percentage of tissue altered (PTA) calculation as part of the planning strategy for myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) by comparing the estimated PTA provided by preoperative calculation to the postoperative PTA actually achieved in microkeratome-assisted myopic LASIK.


METHODS
This retrospective study included 3,624 eyes of 3,624 patients who underwent mechanical microkeratome-assisted LASIK surgery for myopic correction. The calculated preoperative PTA values based on the planned flap thickness and ablation depth were compared with the actual achieved postoperative PTA using the difference of corneal central thickness postoperatively for assessing the achieved ablation depth and the intraoperative ultrasound-assisted flap thickness measurement. Regression analysis was performed to reveal preoperative parameters that might influence PTA calculation accuracy.


RESULTS
The mean difference between the estimated and achieved PTA was 0.451 ± 3.45% (P < .001) (95% CI: 0.3708 to 0.5322) with a preoperative and postoperative mean PTA of 31.07 ± 4.07% and 31.52 ± 5.78%, respectively. The differences between the achieved and planned maximum ablation depth and flap thickness were 4.32 ± 13.70 µm (P < .001) and -1.61 ± 13.66 µm (P < .001), respectively.


CONCLUSIONS
Although a statistically significant difference was found between the preoperative calculated PTA and actually achieved PTA, the difference in PTA value (less than 1%) was clinically non-significant and indicated a highly reliable metric for preoperative refractive surgery planning. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(7):422-427.].