Do air pressure and wind speed influence the outcome of myopic laser refractive surgery? Results from the Hamburg Weather Study.

Ines Neuhaus-Richard, Andreas Frings, Felix Ament, Isabel Caroline Görsch, Vasyl Druchkiv, Toam Katz, Stephan Johannes Linke, Gisbert Richard
Author Information
  1. Ines Neuhaus-Richard: Department of Ophthalmology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.

Abstract

Laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) is one of the dominant procedures for the surgical correction of refractive errors. Meteorotropic reaction has been described regarding the field of ophthalmology. This study was thus initiated to assess the impact of air pressure and wind speed on the refractive and visual outcome of LASIK in myopic eyes. Our study comprised 1,052 eyes of 1,052 consecutive myopic patients (419 males, 633 females; mean age at surgery 35.0 ± 9.0 years) with mean preoperative refractive spherical equivalent (SE) of -3.88 ± 1.85 diopters (D). Two subgroups were defined, which had undergone surgery either during meteorological winter or summer. Manifest refraction, uncorrected and corrected visual acuity were assessed pre- and post-operatively. We applied robust regression analysis with efficiency index (EI), safety index, and postoperative SE (D) as dependent variables. At the 1-month (33.0 ± 5.0 days) follow-up, the mean postoperative SE was -0.18 ± 0.44 D. Bivariate comparisons showed that statistically significant better EI was related to days with low to moderate air-pressure. This was confirmed by robust regression analysis. Moderate to high wind speed was related to more appropriate postoperative SE. No change by more than one line on logMar scale was obtained. Although being statistically significant, there is no clinically relevant difference in outcome of LASIK, which demonstrates its highly standardized quality. Prospective, longitudinal studies are warranted to address meteorotropic reactions through evaluating individual risk profiles.

References

  1. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Jul 18;48(2):287-92 [PMID: 16843177]
  2. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Jan;37(1):1-3 [PMID: 21183094]
  3. Experientia. 1993 Sep 15;49(9):759-68 [PMID: 8405298]
  4. Environ Res. 1978 Jun;15(3):504-12 [PMID: 679906]
  5. Acta Physiol Scand. 1956 Jul 17;37(1):35-9 [PMID: 13339450]
  6. Biol Bull. 1950 Oct;99(2):259-71 [PMID: 14791423]
  7. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013 Mar;39(3):366-77 [PMID: 23506918]
  8. N Engl J Med. 1996 Jul 11;335(2):84-90 [PMID: 8649494]
  9. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2003 Aug;42(8):955-8 [PMID: 12730507]
  10. Am J Epidemiol. 1993 Feb 1;137(3):331-41 [PMID: 8452141]
  11. Environ Res. 1975 Aug;10(1):1-13 [PMID: 1175573]
  12. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Jan;34(1):21-7 [PMID: 18165076]
  13. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2002 Aug;13(4):250-5 [PMID: 12165710]
  14. Rev Bras Reumatol. 2011 Dec;51(6):622-8 [PMID: 22124595]
  15. Environ Res. 1972 Mar;5(1):1-58 [PMID: 4555874]
  16. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011 Oct;11(5):483-91 [PMID: 21822133]
  17. Am J Prev Med. 1999 Jul;17(1):97 [PMID: 10429760]
  18. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004 Apr;30(4):775-85 [PMID: 15093638]
  19. Ophthalmology. 2013 Nov;120(11):2204-8 [PMID: 23769199]
  20. Environ Res. 1995 Aug;70(2):105-13 [PMID: 8674478]
  21. Ann Rheum Dis. 1990 Mar;49(3):158-9 [PMID: 2322026]
  22. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2010 Mar;10(3):403-6 [PMID: 20008897]
  23. Am J Prev Med. 1999 May;16(4):269-77 [PMID: 10493281]
  24. Environ Health Perspect. 2001 May;109 Suppl 2:185-9 [PMID: 11359685]
  25. Neth Heart J. 2012 May;20(5):193-6 [PMID: 22328355]
  26. Am J Med. 2007 May;120(5):429-34 [PMID: 17466654]
  27. J Refract Surg. 2003 Nov-Dec;19(6):636-44 [PMID: 14640428]
  28. Eye Contact Lens. 2011 Jul;37(4):225-32 [PMID: 21646979]
  29. Ulster Med J. 2005 Sep;74(2):113-21 [PMID: 16235764]
  30. Am J Hypertens. 2002 Nov;15(11):941-5 [PMID: 12441212]
  31. Eye (Lond). 2004 Dec;18(12):1235-50 [PMID: 15044935]
  32. J Refract Surg. 2001 Mar-Apr;17(2 Suppl):S202-4 [PMID: 11316022]
  33. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004 Apr;30(4):798-803 [PMID: 15093641]
  34. Int J Biometeorol. 1992 Aug;36(3):125-9 [PMID: 1399102]

MeSH Term

Adult
Air Pressure
Female
Germany
Humans
Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ
Male
Middle Aged
Myopia
Refraction, Ocular
Regression Analysis
Seasons
Visual Acuity
Wind

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.00refractive±SELASIKwindspeedoutcomemyopic1meanDpostoperativeonestudyairpressurevisualeyes052surgeryrobustregressionanalysisindexEIdaysstatisticallysignificantrelatedLasersitukeratomileusisdominantproceduressurgicalcorrectionerrorsMeteorotropicreactiondescribedregardingfieldophthalmologythusinitiatedassessimpactcomprisedconsecutivepatients419males633femalesage359yearspreoperativesphericalequivalent-38885dioptersTwosubgroupsdefinedundergoneeithermeteorologicalwintersummerManifestrefractionuncorrectedcorrectedacuityassessedpre-post-operativelyappliedefficiencysafetydependentvariables1-month335follow-up-01844Bivariatecomparisonsshowedbetterlowmoderateair-pressureconfirmedModeratehighappropriatechangelinelogMarscaleobtainedAlthoughclinicallyrelevantdifferencedemonstrateshighlystandardizedqualityProspectivelongitudinalstudieswarrantedaddressmeteorotropicreactionsevaluatingindividualriskprofilesinfluencelasersurgery?ResultsHamburgWeatherStudy

Similar Articles

Cited By