Comparison of the femtosecond laser and mechanical microkeratome for flap cutting in LASIK
Author:
Affiliation:

Department of Ophthalmology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110004, Liaoning Province, China

  • Article
  • | |
  • Metrics
  • |
  • Reference [27]
  • |
  • Related [20]
  • | | |
  • Comments
    Abstract:

    AIM: To compare refractive results, higher-order aberrations (HOAs), contrast sensitivity and dry eye after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) performed with a femtosecond laser versus a mechanical microkeratome for myopia and astigmatism.METHODS: In this prospective, non-randomized study, 120 eyes with myopia received a LASIK surgery with the VisuMax femtosecond laser for flap cutting, and 120 eyes received a conventional LASIK surgery with a mechanical microkeratome. Flap thickness, visual acuity, manifest refraction, contrast sensitivity function (CSF) curves, HOAs and dry-eye were measured at 1wk; 1, 3, 6mo after surgery.RESULTS:At 6mo postoperatively, the mean central flap thickness in femtosecond laser procedure was 113.05±5.89 μm (attempted thickness 110 μm), and 148.36±21.24 μm (attempted thickness 140 μm) in mechanical microkeratome procedure. An uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 4.9 or better was obtained in more than 98% of eyes treated by both methods, a gain in logMAR lines of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) occurred in more than 70% of eyes treated by both methods, and no eye lost ≥1 lines of CDVA in both groups. The difference of the mean UDVA and CDVA between two groups at any time post-surgery were not statistically significant (P>0.05). The postoperative changes of spherical equivalent occurred markedly during the first month in both groups. The total root mean square values of HOAs and spherical aberrations in the femtosecond treated eyes were markedly less than those in the microkeratome treated eyes during 6mo visit after surgery (P<0.01). The CSF values of the femtosecond treated eyes were also higher than those of the microkeratome treated eyes at all space frequency (P<0.01). The mean ocular surface disease index scores in both groups were increased at 1wk, and recovered to preoperative level at 1mo after surgery. The mean tear breakup time (TBUT) of the femtosecond treated eyes were markedly longer than those of the microkeratome treated eyes at postoperative 1, 3mo (P<0.01).CONCLUSION:Both the femtosecond laser and the mechanical microkeratome for LASIK flap cutting are safe and effective to correct myopia, with no statistically significant difference in the UDVA, CDVA during 6mo follow-up. Refractive results remained stable after 1mo post-operation for both groups. The femtosecond laser may have advantages over the microkeratome in the flap thickness predictability, fewer induced HOAs, better CSF, and longer TBUT.

    Reference
    1 Slade SG. The use of the femtosecond laser in the customization of corneal flaps in laser in situ keratomileusis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2007;18(4):314-317
    2 Durrie DS, Kezirian GM. Femtosecond laser versus mechanical keratome flaps in wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis:prospective contralateral eye study. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31(1):120-126
    3 Krueger RR, Thornton IL, Xu M, Bor Z, van den Berg TJ. Rainbow glare as an optical side effect of IntraLASIK. Ophthalmology 2008;115(7):1187-1195
    4 Gil-Cazorla R, Teus MA, de Benito-Llopis L, Fuentes I. Incidence of diffuse lamellar keratitis after laser in situ keratomileusis associated with the IntraLase 15 kHz femtosecond laser and Moria M2 microkeratome. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008;34(1):28-31
    5 Issa A, Al Hassany U. Femtosecond laser flap parameters and visual outcomes in laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011;37(4):665-674
    6 Binder PS. Flap dimensions created with the IntraLase FS laser. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004;30(1):26-32
    7 Soong HK, Malta JB. Femtosecond lasers in ophthalmology. Am J Ophthalmol 2009;147(2):189-197
    8 Chen S, Feng Y, Stojanovic A, Jankov MR 2nd, Wang Q. Intralase femtosecond laser vs mechanical microkeratomes in LASIK for myopia:a systematic review and meta-analyis. J Refract Surg 2012;28(1):15-24
    9 Moshirfar M, Gardiner JP, Schliesser JA, Espandar L, Feiz V, Mifflin MD, Chang JC. Laser in situ keratomileusis flap complications using mechanical microkeratome versus femtosecond laser:retrospective comparison. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010;36(11):1925-1933
    10 de Paula FH, Khairallah CG, Niziol LM, Musch DC, Shtein RM. Diffuse lamellar keratitis after laser in situ keratomileusis with femtosecond laser flap creation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012;38(6):1014-1019
    11 Montés-Micó R, Rodríguez-Galietero A, Alió JL. Femtosecond laser versus mechanical keratome LASIK for myopia. Ophthalmology 2007;114(1):62-68
    12 Cosar CB, Gonen T, Moray M, Sener AB. Comparison of visual acuity, refractive results and complications of femtosecond laser with mechanical microkeratome in LASIK. Int J Ophthalmol 2013;6(3):350-355
    13 Calvo R, McLaren JW, Hodge DO, Bourne WM, Patel SV. Corneal aberrations and visual acuity after laser in situ keratomileusis:femtosecond laser versus mechanical microkeratome. Am J Ophthalmol 2010;149(5):785-793
    14 Schiffman RM, Christianson MD, Jacobsen G, Hirsch JD, Reis BL. Reliability and validity of the ocular surface disease index. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118(5):615-621
    15 Li M, Zhao J, Shen Y, Li T, He L, Xu H, Yu Y, Zhou X. Comparison of dry eye and corneal sensitivity between small incision lenticule extraction and femtosecond LASIK for myopia. PLoS One 2013;8(10):e77797
    16 De Paiva CS, Pflugfelder SC. Corneal epitheliopathy of dry eye induces hyperesthesia to mechanical air jet stimulation. Am J Ophthalmol 2004;137(1):109-115
    17 Oshika T, Klyce SD, Applegate RA, Howland HC, El Danasoury MA. Comparison of corneal wavefront aberrations after photorefractive keratectomy and laser in situ keratomileusis. Am J Ophthalmol 1999;127(1):1-7
    18 Porter J, MacRae S, Yoon G, Roberts C, Cox IG, Williams DR. Separate effects of the microkeratome incision and laser ablation on the eye''s wave aberration. Am J Ophthalmol 2003;136(2):327-337
    19 Pallikaris IG, Kymionis GD, Panagopoulou SI, Siganos CS, Theodorakis MA, Pallikaris AI. Induced optical aberrations following formation of a laser in situ keratomileusis flap. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002;28(10):1737-1741
    20 Oshika T. Quantitative assessment of quality of vision. Nihon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi 2004;108(12):770-807
    21 Lim T, Yang S, Kim M, Tchah H. Comparison of the IntraLase femtosecond laser and mechanical microkeratome for laser in situ keratomileusis. Am J Ophthalmol 2006;141(5):833-839
    22 Medeiros FW, Stapleton WM, Hammel J, Krueger RR, Netto MV, Wilson SE. Wavefront analysis comparison of LASIK outcomes with the femtosecond laser and mechanical microkeratomes. J Refract Surg 2007;23(9):880-887
    23 Buzzonetti L, Petrocelli G, Valente P, Tamburrelli C, Mosca L, Laborante A, Balestrazzi E. Comparison of corneal aberration changes after laser in situ keratomileusis performed with mechanical microkeratome and IntraLase femtosecond laser:1-year follow-up. Cornea 2008;27(2):174-179
    24 Shtein RM. Post-LASIK dry eye. Expert Rev Ophthalmol 2011;6(5):575-582
    25 Wang Y, Xu J, Sun X, Chu R, Zhuang H, He JC. Dynamic wavefront aberrations and visual acuity in normal and dry eyes. Clin Exp Optom 2009;92(3):267-273
    26 Montes-Mico R, Caliz A, Alio JL. Wavefront analysis of higher order aberrations in dry eye patients. J Refract Surg 2004;20(3):243-247
    27 Sun CC, Chang CK, Ma DH, Lin YF, Chen KJ, Sun MH, Hsiao CH, Wu PH. Dry eye after LASIK with a femtosecond laser or a mechanical microkeratome. Optom Vis Sci 2013;90(10):1048-1056
    Cited by
    Comments
    Comments
    分享到微博
    Submit
Get Citation

Li-Kun Xia, Jie Yu, Guang-Rui Chai,/et al.Comparison of the femtosecond laser and mechanical microkeratome for flap cutting in LASIK. Int J Ophthalmol, 2015,8(4):784-790

Copy
Share
Article Metrics
  • Abstract:2195
  • PDF: 776
  • HTML: 0
  • Cited by: 0
Publication History
  • Received:May 21,2014
  • Revised:July 04,2014
  • Adopted:July 04,2014
  • Online: July 27,2015