Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery
Volume 34, Issue 3 , Pages 407-410 , March 2008

Blade source effect on laser in situ keratomileusis flap thickness with the Amadeus I microkeratome

,Accepted 1 November 2007.

References 

  1. Flanagan GW, Binder PS. Precision of flap measurements for laser in situ keratomileusis in 4428 eyes. J Refract Surg. 2003;19:113–123
  2. Giledi O, Daya SM. Unexpected flap thickness in laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29:1825–1826
  3. Giledi O, Mulhern MG, Espinosa M, et al. Reproducibility of LASIK flap thickness using the Hansatome microkeratome. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30:1031–1037
  4. Jackson DW, Wang L, Koch DD. Accuracy and precision of the Amadeus microkeratome in producing LASIK flaps. Cornea. 2003;22:504–507
  5. Solomon KD, Donnenfeld E, Sandoval HP, et al. Flap thickness accuracy: comparison of 6 microkeratome models; Flap Thickness Study Group. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30:964–977
  6. Duffey RJ. Thin flap laser in situ keratomileusis: flap dimensions with the Moria LSK-One manual microkeratome using the 100-μm head. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:1159–1162
  7. Shemesh G, Dotan G, Lipshitz I. Predictability of corneal flap thickness in laser in situ keratomileusis using three different microkeratomes. J Refract Surg. 2002;18:S347–S351
  8. Ou RJ, Shaw EL, Glasgow BJ. Keratectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK): evaluation of the calculated residual stromal bed thickness. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134:771–773
  9. Randleman JB, Woodward M, Lynn MJ, Stulting RD. Risk assessment for ectasia after corneal refractive surgery. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:37–50
  10. Reinstein DZ, Srivannaboon S, Archer TJ, et al. Probability model of the inaccuracy of residual stromal thickness prediction to reduce the risk of ectasia after LASIK. Part II. Quantifying population risk. J Refract Surg. 2006;22:861–870
  11. Reinstein DZ, Srivannaboon S, Archer TJ, et al. Probability model of the inaccuracy of residual stromal thickness prediction to reduce the risk of ectasia after LASIK. Part I: quantifying individual risk. J Refract Surg. 2006;22:851–860
  12. Cobo-Soriano R, Calvo MA, Beltrán J, et al. Thin flap laser in situ keratomileusis: analysis of contrast sensitivity, visual, and refractive outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:1357–1365
  13. Esquenazi S, Bui V, Grunstein L, Esquenazi I. Safety and stability of laser in situ keratomileusis for myopic correction performed under thin flaps. Can J Ophthalmol. 2007;42:592–599Available at: http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cjo/cjo42/i07-080.pdfAccessed December 5, 2007
  14. Prandi B, Baviera J, Morcillo M. Influence of flap thickness on results of laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia. J Refract Surg. 2004;20:790–796
  15. Binder PS. One thousand consecutive IntraLase laser in situ keratomileusis flaps. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32:962–969
  16. Stahl JE, Durrie DS, Schwendeman FJ, Boghossian AJ. Anterior segment OCT analysis of thin IntraLase femtosecond flaps. J Refract Surg. 2007;23:555–558
  17. Lin RT, Lu S, Wang LL, et al. Safety of laser in situ keratomileusis performed under ultra-thin corneal flaps. J Refract Surg. 2003;19:S231–S236
  18. Yeo HE, Song BJ. Clinical feature of unintended thin corneal flap in LASIK: 1-year follow-up. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2002;16:63–69Available at: http://pdf.medrang.co.kr/paper/pdf/Kjo/Kjo016-02-01.pdfAccessed December 5, 2007

 No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

 Supported in part by Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc., New York, New York, and National Institutes of Health core grant P30 EYO6360, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

PII: S0886-3350(07)02051-2

doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.11.020

Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery
Volume 34, Issue 3 , Pages 407-410 , March 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution