May 2007
Volume 48, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2007
Central Epithelial and Flap Thickness After LASIK: Femtosecond Laser vs. Mechanical Microkeratome
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • C. B. Nau
    Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
  • S. V. Patel
    Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
  • J. W. McLaren
    Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
  • L. J. Maguire
    Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
  • W. M. Bourne
    Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships C.B. Nau, None; S.V. Patel, None; J.W. McLaren, None; L.J. Maguire, None; W.M. Bourne, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support NIH Grant EY02037, Research to Prevent Blindness, and Mayo Foundation
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2007, Vol.48, 5329. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      C. B. Nau, S. V. Patel, J. W. McLaren, L. J. Maguire, W. M. Bourne; Central Epithelial and Flap Thickness After LASIK: Femtosecond Laser vs. Mechanical Microkeratome. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2007;48(13):5329.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract
 
Purpose:
 

To determine if epithelial and flap thicknesses differ after LASIK with the flap created by using a femtosecond laser versus the flap created by using a mechanical microkeratome.

 
Methods:
 

Twenty-one patients received bilateral LASIK in a paired-eye study. One eye of each patient was randomized to flap creation by using a femtosecond laser (IntraLase FS, IntraLase Corp., Irvine, CA) with intended thickness of 120 µm, and the fellow eye to flap creation with a microkeratome (Hansatome, Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) with intended thickness of 180 µm. Preoperative spheroequivalent refractive error was -3.7 ± 1.7 D (mean ± SD) and -3.8 ± 1.8 D for femtosecond laser and microkeratome eyes respectively. Corneas were examined by using confocal microscopy before and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery by scanning the focal plane through the cornea at constant speed. Epithelial and flap thicknesses were determined from the number of video frames between images of the epithelial surface and subbasal nerve plexus (or the corresponding intensity peak if nerves were not visible) and between images of the epithelial surface and interface particles, respectively.

 
Results:
 

Epithelial thickness did not differ between treatments at any time; mean minimum detectable difference (MDD) was 9.3 µm (α=0.05/5, ß=0.20). Postoperative epithelial thickness did not differ from preoperative at any time (MDD= 7.3 µm; α=0.05/4, ß=0.20). Measured flap thickness differed from intended flap thickness for both treatments (P≤ 0.001).  

 
Conclusions:
 

The method of flap creation does not influence epithelial thickness after LASIK. Femtosecond laser flaps were thicker than intended whereas microkeratome flaps were thinner than intended. Epithelial and flap thicknesses remain stable during the first year after LASIK, regardless of the method of flap creation.

 
Clinical Trial:
 

www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00350246

 
Keywords: refractive surgery: LASIK • microscopy: confocal/tunneling • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: treatment/prevention assessment/controlled clinical trials 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×