Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery
Volume 34, Issue 12 , Pages 2049-2056 , December 2008

Differences in the corneal biomechanical effects of surface ablation compared with laser in situ keratomileusis using a microkeratome or femtosecond laser

,Accepted 6 August 2008.

References 

  1. Amoils SP, Deist MB, Gous P, Amoils PM. Iatrogenic keratectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis for less than −4.0 to −7.0 diopters of myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;26:967–977
  2. Klein SR, Epstein RJ, Randleman JB, Stulting RD. Corneal ectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis in patients without apparent preoperative risk factors. Cornea. 2006;25:388–403
  3. Holland SP, Srivannaboon S, Reinstein DZ. Avoiding serious corneal complications of laser assisted in situ keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:640–652
  4. Parmar D, Claoué C. Keratectasia following excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy. [letter] Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2004;82:102–105
  5. Randleman JB, Caster AI, Banning CS, Stulting RD. Corneal ectasia after photorefractive keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32:1395–1398
  6. Lovisolo CF, Fleming JF. Intracorneal ring segments for iatrogenic keratectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis or photorefractive keratectomy. J Refract Surg. 2002;18:535–541
  7. Kurtz RM, Liu X, Elner VM, Squier JA, Du D, Mourou GA. Photodisruption in the human cornea as a function of laser pulse width. J Refract Surg. 1997;13:653–658
  8. Stonecipher K, Ignacio TS, Stonecipher M. Advances in refractive surgery: microkeratome and femtosecond laser flap creation in relation to safety, efficacy, predictability, and biomechanical stability. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006;17:368–372
  9. Jaycock PD, Lobo L, Ibrahim J, Tyrer J, Marshall J. Interferometric technique to measure biomechanical changes in the cornea induced by refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:175–184
  10. Schmack I, Dawson DG, McCarey BE, Waring GO, Grossniklaus HE, Edelhauser HF. Cohesive tensile strength of human LASIK wounds with histologic, ultrastructural, and clinical correlations. J Refract Surg. 2005;21:433–445
  11. Gatinel D, Chaabouni S, Adam P-A, Munck J, Puech M, Hoang-Xuan T. Corneal hysteresis, resistance factor, topography, and pachymetry after corneal lamellar flap. J Refract Surg. 2007;23:76–84
  12. Pepose JS, Feigenbaum SK, Qazi MA, Sanderson JP, Roberts CJ. Changes in corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure following LASIK using static, dynamic, and noncontact tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:39–47
  13. Kim JY, Kim MJ, Kim T-I, Choi H-J, Pak JH, Tchah H. A femtosecond laser creates a stronger flap than a mechanical microkeratome. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:599–604Available at: http://www.iovs.org/cgi/reprint/47/2/599Accessed September 3, 2008
  14. Sonigo B, Iordanidou V, Chong-Sit D, Auclin F, Ancel JM, Labbé A, et al. In vivo corneal confocal microscopy comparison of IntraLase femtosecond laser and mechanical microkeratome for laser in situ keratomileusis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:2803–2811Available at: http://www.iovs.org/cgi/reprint/47/7/2803Accessed September 3, 2008
  15. Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:156–162
  16. Tran DB, Sarayba MA, Bor Z, Garufis C, Dun Y-J, Soltes CR, et al. Randomized prospective clinical study comparing induced aberrations with IntraLase and Hansatome flap creation in fellow eyes: potential impact on wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:97–105
  17. Kezirian GM, Stonecipher KG. Comparison of the IntraLase femtosecond laser and mechanical keratomes for laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30:804–811
  18. 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;31:120–126
  19. Ortiz D, Alió JL, Piñero D. Measurement of corneal curvature change after mechanical laser in situ keratomileusis flap creation and femtosecond laser flap creation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:238–242
  20. Guirao A. Theoretical elastic response of the cornea to refractive surgery: risk factors for keratectasia. J Refract Surg. 2005;21:176–185
  21. Pallikaris IG, Kymionis GD, Astyrakakis NI. Corneal ectasia induced by laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27:1796–1802
  22. Kirwan C, O'Keefe M. Corneal hysteresis using the Reichert ocular response analyser: findings pre- and post-LASIK and LASEK. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 2008;86:215–218
  23. 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
  24. Krueger RR, Dupps WJ. Biomechanical effects of femtosecond and microkeratome-based flap creation: prospective contralateral examination of two patients. J Refract Surg. 2007;23:800–807
  25. Alió J, Piñero DP. Very high-frequency digital ultrasound measurement of the LASIK flap thickness profile using the IntraLase femtosecond laser and M2 and Carriazo-Pendular microkeratomes. J Refract Surg. 2008;24:12–23
  26. Randleman JB, Dawson DG, Grossniklaus HE, McCarey BE, Edelhauser HF. Depth-dependent cohesive tensile strength in human donor corneas: implications for refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 2008;24:S85–S89
  27. Dawson DG, Grossniklaus HE, McCarey BE, Edelhauser HF. Biomechanical and wound healing characteristics of corneas after excimer laser keratorefractive surgery: is there a difference between advanced surface ablation and sub-Bowman's keratomileusis?. J Refract Surg. 2008;24:S90–S96
  28. Gimbel HV, Anderson Penno EE. Intraoperative complications. In:  Gimbel HV,  Anderson Penno EE editor. LASIK Complications; Prevention and Management. 2nd ed.. Thorofare, NJ: Slack; 2001;p. 66–70
  29. Holzer MP, Rabsilber TM, Auffarth GU. Femtosecond laser-assisted corneal flap cuts: morphology, accuracy, and histopathology. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:2828–2831Available at: http://www.iovs.org/cgi/reprint/47/7/2828Accessed September 3, 2008
  30. Binder PS. Ectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29:2419–2429
  31. Ortiz D, Piñero D, Shabayek MH, Arnalich-Montiel F, Alió JL. Corneal biomechanical properties in normal, post-laser in situ keratomileusis, and keratoconic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33:1371–1375
  32. Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Bhojwani R, Mantry S, Cunliffe I. Assessment of the biomechanical properties of the cornea with the ocular response analyzer in normal and keratoconic eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:3026–3031Available at: http://www.iovs.org/cgi/reprint/48/7/3026Accessed September 3, 2008
  33. Randleman JB, Woodward M, Lynn MJ, Stulting RD. Risk assessment for ectasia after corneal refractive surgery. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:37–50
  34. Comaish IF, Lawless MA. Progressive post-LASIK keratectasia; biomechanical instability or chronic disease process?. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28:2206–2213

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

 Presented at the ASCRS Symposium on Cataract, IOL and Refractive Surgery, San Diego, California, USA, April 2007.

 Fei Yu, PhD, statistician at the Clinical Research Center, Jules Stein Eye Institute, performed all the statistical analyses.

PII: S0886-3350(08)00887-0

doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.08.021

Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery
Volume 34, Issue 12 , Pages 2049-2056 , December 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution