Eighty-micron flap femtosecond-assisted LASIK for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism.
Journal
Journal of cataract and refractive surgery
ISSN: 1873-4502
Titre abrégé: J Cataract Refract Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8604171
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Apr 2021
01 Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
06
07
2020
accepted:
29
09
2020
pubmed:
17
11
2020
medline:
29
7
2021
entrez:
16
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 80-μm flap femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK and the early clinical and refractive outcomes in the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism. Private practice, outpatient. Prospective study. Patients who underwent femtosecond-assisted LASIK between February and April 2018 were included. Inclusion criteria were myopia from -1.00 to -8.00 diopters (D) and astigmatism up to -3.00 D and no previous surgeries. All patients were tested preoperatively and on day 1 and month 3 for uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), manifest refraction, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), slitlamp and dilated fundus examination, Schirmer I test with anesthesia, and ocular surface disease index questionnaire. The FEMTO LDV Z8 was used for flap construction and the Wavelight Allegretto 400 excimer for refractive treatment. Flap thickness was measured at week 1 with anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT). Eighty-two eyes were included. Logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution UDVA was 1.28 ± 0.53 preoperatively, 0.02 ± 0.05 at day 1, and 0.14 ± 0.127 at month 3. There was no loss of CDVA lines. The mean flap thickness measured at 1 week with AS-OCT was 73 ± 6.7 µm. The use of ultrathin flaps, just below Bowman's layer, with the Ziemer LDV Z8 femtosecond laser was possible, safe, reliable, and reproducible. Eighty-micron flaps allowed for excellent vision on 1 day post-LASIK and might be a good alternative to maintain an appropriate percentage of tissue altered, especially when attempting greater corrections or larger treatment zones.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33196573
pii: 02158034-202104000-00004
doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000484
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
445-449Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Published by Wolters Kluwer on behalf of ASCRS and ESCRS.
Références
McAlinden C. Corneal refractive surgery: past to present. Clin Exp Optom 2012;95:386–398
Pallikaris IG, Papatzanaki ME, Stathi EZ, Frenschock O, Georgiadis A. Laser in situ keratomileusis. Lasers Surg Med 1990;10:463–468
Seiler T, Koufala K, Richter G. Iatrogenic keratectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Refract Surg 1998;14:312–317
Randleman JB. Post-laser in-situ keratomileusis ectasia: current understanding and future directions. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2006;17:406–412
Ambrósio R Jr. Post-LASIK ectasia: 20 years of a conundrum. Semin Ophthalmol 2019;34:66–68
Litwak S, Zadok D, Garcia-de Quevedo V, Robledo N, Chayet AS. Laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy versus photorefractive keratectomy for the correction of myopia. A prospective comparative study. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002;28:1330–1333
Torres LF, Sancho C, Ten B, Padilla K, Schanzlin DJ, Chayet AS. Early postoperative pain following Epi-LASIK and photorefractive keratectomy: a prospective, comparative, bilateral study. J Refract Surg 2007;23:126–132
Blake CR, Cervantes-Castañeda RA, Macias-Rodriguez Y, Anzoulatous G, Anderson R, Chayet AS. Comparison of postoperative pain in patients following photorefractive keratectomy versus advanced surface ablation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31:1314–1319
Slade SG. Thin-flap laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2008;19:325–329
Fazel F, Ghoreishi M, Ashtari A, Arefpour R, Namgar M. Comparison of sub-Bowman keratoplasty laser in situ keratomileusis flap properties between microkeratome and femtosecond laser. Adv Biomed Res 2017;6:149
Prakash G, Agarwal A, Kumar DA, Chari M, Agarwal A, Jacob S, Srivastava D. Femtosecond sub-Bowman keratomileusis: a prospective, long-term, intereye comparison of safety and outcomes of 90- vs 100-µm flaps. Am J Ophthalmol 2011;152:582–590
Slade SG, Durrie DS, Binder PS. A prospective, contralateral eye study comparing thin-flap LASIK (sub-Bowman keratomileusis) with photorefractive keratectomy. Ophthalmology 2009;116:1075–1082
Durrie DS, Slade SG, Marshall J. Wavefront-guided excimer laser ablation using photorefractive keratectomy and sub-Bowman's keratomileusis: a contralateral eye study. J Refract Surg 2008;24:S77–S84
Vryghem JC, Heireman S, Devogelaere T. Thin flap LASIK with a high-frequency, low-energy, small spot femtosecond laser—effectiveness and Safety. Eur Ophthalmic Rev 2014;8:99–103
Kanellopoulos AJ, Asimellis G. Three-dimensional LASIK flap thickness variability: topographic central, paracentral and peripheral assessment, in flaps created by a mechanical microkeratome (M2) and two different femtosecond lasers (FS60 and FS200). Clin Ophthalmol 2013;7:675–683
Zhou Y, Zhang J, Tian L, Zhai C. Comparison of the Ziemer FEMTO LDV femtosecond laser and Moria M2 mechanical microkeratome. J Refract Surg 2012;28:189–194
Kim T, Alió del Barrio JL, Wilkins M, Cochener B, Ang M. Refractive surgery. Lancet 2019;393:2085–2098
Durrie DS, Brinton JP, Avila MR, Stahl ED. Evaluating the speed of visual recovery following thin-flap LASIK with a femtosecond laser. J Refract Surg 2012;28:620–624
Taha S, Azzam S, Anis M, Zaazou C, Hosny M. Verification and measurement of the side-cut angle of corneal flap in patients undergoing LASIK surgery using FS 200 kHz femtosecond laser system versus conventional mechanical microkeratome. Clin Ophthalmol 2019;13:985–992
Sun Q, Deng ZZ, Zhou YH, Zhang J, Peng XY. Effect of femtosecond and microkeratome flaps creation on the cornea biomechanics during laser in situ keratomileusis: one year follow-up. Int J Ophthalmol 2016;9:1409–1414
Letko E, Price MO, Price FW Jr. Influence of original flap creation method on incidence of epithelial ingrowth after LASIK retreatment. J Refract Surg 2009;25:1039–1041
Shah R. History and results; indications and contraindications of SMILE compared with LASIK. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) 2019;8:371–376
Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Randleman JB. Mathematical model to compare the relative tensile strength of the cornea after PRK, LASIK, and small incision lenticle extraction. J Refract Surg 2013;29:454–460
Khamar P, Shetty R, Vishnav R, Francis M, Nuijts RMMA, Sinha Roy S. Biomechanics of LASIK flap and SMILE cap: a prospective, clinical study. J Refract Surg 2019;35:324–332
Wei P, Cheng GP, Zhang J, Ng AL, Chan TC, Jhanji V, Wang Y. Changes in corneal volume at different areas and its correlation with corneal biomechanics after SMILE and FS-LASIK surgery. J Ophthalmol 2020;2020:1713979
Medeiros FW, Sinha-Roy A, Alves MR, Dupps WJ Jr. Biomechanical corneal changes induced by different flap thickness created by femtosecond laser. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2011;66:1067–1071
Santhiago MR, Wilson SE, Smadja D, Chamon W, Krueger RE, Randleman JB. Validation of the percent tissue altered as a risk factor for ectasia after LASIK. Ophthalmology 2019;126:908–909
Hardten DR, Gosavi VV. Photorefractive keratectomy in eyes with atypical topography. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009;35:1437–1444
Guedj M, Saad A, Audureau E, Gatinel D. Photorefractive keratectomy in patients with suspected keratoconus: five-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013;39:66–73
Sorkin N, Kaiserman I, Domniz Y, Sela T, Munzer G, Varssano D. Risk assessment for corneal ectasia following photorefractive keratectomy. J Ophthalmol 2017;2017:2434830
Giri P, Azar DT. Risk profiles of ectasia after keratorefractive surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2017;28:337–342
de Paiva CS. Effects of aging in dry eye. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2017;57:47–64