This investigation demonstrated that, after LASIK, nerve density in the central anterior cornea, as it appeared in confocal microscopy, recovers very slowly; the subbasal nerve layer, which we earlier noted does not recover by 1 year,
9 did not completely recover by 3 years. The slow return of innervation is consistent with histologic studies in human eyes, although the longest postoperative times for histologic examination have been 4 months,
16 and 20 months.
17 Anderson et al.
17 found a lack of corneal nerves at 3 months and a few small superficial nerves at 20 months after LASIK in two postmortem corneas. In normal corneas that have not had surgery, nerve density decreases only slightly between ages of 25 and 70,
24 and the decreased nerve density 3 years after LASIK is unlikely to represent the normal demise of nerves in our group of patients.
The partial recovery of nerves to the central cornea is not consistent with studies of corneal sensitivity, which have shown normal sensitivity to Cochet-Bonnet esthesiometry 6 months after the procedure.
2 3 4 5 10 11 12 Control subjects, however, responded to the lowest stimulus force provided by the Cochet-Bonnet esthesiometer, and by 6 months after LASIK, mean corneal sensitivity had returned to slightly less than this. If the smallest stimulus available from this device is well over the threshold in a normal untreated cornea, then a response to near this stimulus may not represent a complete recovery. Recovery must be assessed with an esthesiometer capable of providing a subthreshold stimulus as a control, such as the noncontact gas esthesiometers described by Murphy and coworkers
18 19 and Belmonte and coworkers.
20
One advantage of permanent recordings of full-thickness scans by confocal microscopy is that the scans can be reevaluated as more sophisticated analyses are developed. Scans recorded preoperatively and during the first postoperative year in these 17 eyes have been evaluated for corneal nerves three times. First, a qualitative analysis devised by Linna et al.
5 was used to measure the number of corneas in which a particular type of subbasal nerve was seen at each postoperative examination.
21 Second, the numbers of subbasal and stromal nerves per scan were measured.
9 Third (the present study), the density and orientation as well as the numbers of subbasal and stromal nerves were measured, and additional examinations at 2 and 3 years were performed. One masked examiner (different for each report) evaluated all scans. The number of nerves estimated in the present study was similar to those reported previously,
9 and small differences could be attributed to the subjective nature of identifying nerves and differences between observers.
Preoperative estimates of nerve densities in this study were similar to densities expressed as length of nerve per area of view and reported by Jacot et al.
22 in rat corneas, and Oliveira-Soto and Efron
14 in human corneas
(Table 4) . Numbers of nerves per frame were similar to those found by Rosenberg et al.
23 in their normal control corneas. Small differences between Oliveira-Soto’s results in humans and ours may in part be related to the difference between the sizes and shapes of the fields of view of the different confocal microscopes. However, densities reported by Grupcheva et al.,
24 expressed in the same way, were approximately one tenth of those reported by us and by Jacot et al.
22 and Oliveira-Soto and Efron.
14 Grupcheva et al.
24 assessed nerve length in each image by using a method that reduced the effective depth of the focal plane and included only 10% to 20% of the length of visible nerve fibers. In contrast, we and Oliveira-Soto and Efron
14 included the entire visible length of nerve fibers in the image. Differences between these methods have been discussed.
25 Differences in nerve density that arise from the variations in shape, magnification of images, and selection criteria from different confocal microscopes are important when comparing densities across studies, but they should not affect conclusions in longitudinal studies, such as this one, that record images by using the same microscope and method throughout the study.
The median subbasal nerve density increased from very few within 1 month after surgery to approximately half of the normal densities at 2 years, and although this appears well below normal, it was not significantly different from normal. The median density then decreased slightly in the third year, to a density that was again significantly less than it was before LASIK. It is not clear if this decrease in the third year means that the recovery reached an upper limit and receded, that it was part of the normal variation of corneal innervation, or that our ability to assess nerve density by using this technique is limited. Additional studies are needed to determine the true nature of these changes and to determine whether recovery will extend beyond 3 years and nerve density will eventually reach the pre-LASIK density.
The reason for a decrease in subbasal nerve density after a partial recovery is not clear. Erie et al.
26 also noted a decrease in keratocyte density during the third year in the same 17 corneas. Direct innervation of a keratocyte by a stromal nerve has been demonstrated by Müller.
27 If stromal nerves and keratocytes interact, then the populations of nerves and keratocytes may be dependent on each other. For example, if keratocytes are required to maintain the maximal density of nerve fibers, or if keratocytes are maintained by neurotrophic factors, then the population of one would decrease when the population of the other decreases. Both populations could also be responding to other unknown factors that, when diminished, reduce populations of both nerves and keratocytes. These changes do not seem to reflect a universal response to injury; after PRK, nerves recover to near preoperative densities by 2 years and density does not decrease in the third year.
28
The long-term consequence of the nerve deficit after LASIK is unknown. Normal innervation is not necessary for corneal clarity; transplanted corneas can have severe nerve deficits
29 and hypoesthesia
30 for many years but remain clear. Whether the decreased keratocyte density
31 and the eventual loss of stromal clarity in some patients with corneal transplants is related to this loss of nerve fibers is unknown.
The loss and recovery of innervation after LASIK likely depends on the location of the flap relative to the path of most nerves into the central cornea. In an earlier study Müller et al.
32 suggested that the corneal nerve bundles enter the cornea at the nasal and temporal limbus and extend primarily in a horizontal orientation. If this were true, cutting LASIK flaps with a superior hinge would sever more nerves than those with a nasal hinge. Two studies have compared corneal sensitivity after LASIK in patients with flaps cut on the nasal versus superior sides. Donnenfeld et al.
2 found greater loss of sensitivity in corneas with superior hinges, confirming the original suggestion of Müller et al.,
32 while Kumano et al.
11 found the opposite result. In a more recent investigation, Müller et al.
33 observed that the corneal nerves, in agreement with previous histologic studies,
29 34 enter the cornea radially from all directions rather than primarily nasally or temporally, and extend across the central cornea primarily in a vertical direction. Thus, superior and nasal hinges should sever similar numbers of nerves, and alternative explanations must be sought for the opposing findings in the two previous clinical studies.
2 11
The orientation of central subbasal nerves in the normal preoperative corneas in this study was primarily vertical as noted by Oliveira-Soto and Efron,
14 and this is consistent with the recent model suggested by Müller et al.
33 based on histologic analysis. After LASIK, as nerve fibers returned to this region, they still had a vertical component, but many nerves were oblique
(Fig. 4) . This perhaps reflects the direction of new growth across the interface into this region horizontally from the sides.
A trend toward more horizontal fibers may have been masked by the ophthalmic lens convention (0° to 180°) used to specify angle. For example, if nerve fibers were distributed about the horizontal axis, the mean angle would be close to 90°, although the SD would be greater than 43°. Measurement of angle from the horizontal (regardless of slope) would better indicate if nerves were vertical or horizontal. The mean angle from horizontal would range from 0° to 90°; a mean near 0° would represent a predominantly horizontal distribution, whereas a mean near 90° would represent a predominantly vertical distribution. Expressed in this way, our mean nerve angle from the horizontal before LASIK was 73 ± 12°, and at 1, 2, and 3 years after LASIK was 60 ± 17°, 55 ± 20°, and 58 ± 15° (
P = 0.003,
P = 0.007, and
P = 0.02 vs. preoperative, paired
t-test, adjusted for six comparisons by the method of Bonferroni). At the other times this variable was not significantly different from what it was before LASIK. Although the nerve angle was significantly less by this convention at 1 to 3 years after LASIK, nerve orientation remained predominantly vertical, as illustrated in
Figure 4 .
Our study was limited to the central 3 to 4 mm of the cornea, and outside this area, but still under the flap, nerve growth may be in directions other than what we measured and at other orientations. Observations across the entire LASIK flap are required to describe the complete path of reinnervation.
In summary, the corneal nerves that are lost during LASIK slowly regenerate, but do not return to preoperative densities by 3 years. The return is characterized by variations in the regeneration rate, with a decrease in number during the third year. As nerve fibers return to this tissue, they maintain their preoperative orientation, which is predominantly vertical for subbasal nerves and more random for stromal nerves. The long-term consequences of these changes on corneal clarity and vision are unknown.