May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
A Randomized–Controlled Study of Bladeless and Microkeratome LASIK
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • S.V. Patel
    Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN
  • J.W. McLaren
    Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN
  • L.J. Maguire
    Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN
  • W.M. Bourne
    Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  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 2006, Vol.47, 4331. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      S.V. Patel, J.W. McLaren, L.J. Maguire, W.M. Bourne; A Randomized–Controlled Study of Bladeless and Microkeratome LASIK . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):4331.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To compare outcomes between eyes randomized to LASIK performed with a femtosecond laser (bladeless) and LASIK performed with a microkeratome.

Methods: : Twenty patients received LASIK for myopia or myopic astigmatism. One eye of each patient was randomized by ocular dominance to flap creation with a femtosecond laser (IntraLase FS, IntraLase Corp., Irvine, CA) with intended flap thickness of 120 µm, and the other eye to flap creation with a microkeratome (Hansatome, Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) with intended flap thickness of 180 µm. Patients were examined before surgery and at 1, 3 and 6 months after surgery. During each visit, backscattered light was measured from digitized high magnification video images of a slit–beam, forward light scatter was measured by a stray light meter, high–contrast visual acuity was measured by electronic–ETDRS, contrast sensitivity was measured by the Functional Acuity Contrast Test, and confocal microscopy in vivo was used to examine keratocytes and measure flap thickness. At 3 months, patients were asked if they preferred the vision in either eye.

Results: : Corneal backscatter was higher after bladeless LASIK than after LASIK with the microkeratome at 1 month (P= .003, n=20), 3 months (P= .014, n=20), and 6 months (P= .045, n=13). In both treatments, corneal backscatter was higher at 1 month (bladeless, P= .001, n=20; microkeratome, P= .009, n=20) and 3 months (bladeless, P= .002, n=20; microkeratome, P= .031, n=20) after LASIK than before LASIK. Forward light scatter did not differ between treatments at any time, but was higher at 3 months (bladeless, P= .030, n=20; microkeratome, P= .034, n=20) and 6 months (bladeless, P= .007, n=13; microkeratome, P= .022, n=13) after LASIK than before LASIK. High–contrast visual acuity (corrected and uncorrected) and contrast sensitivity did not differ between treatments at any time. In both treatments, confocal microscopy images showed particles at the interface and activated keratocytes deep to the interface. Flap thickness at 1 month was 142 ± 16 µm (bladeless, mean ± SD, n=20) and 139 ± 22 µm (microkeratome, n=20, P= .563). At 3 months, 7 patients preferred the microkeratome eye, 5 patients preferred the bladeless eye, and 8 patients had no preference. Ocular preference did not correspond to ocular dominance or better uncorrected visual acuity.

Conclusions: : High–contrast visual acuity and contrast sensitivity does not differ between eyes receiving myopic bladeless LASIK or LASIK performed with a microkeratome. Although corneal backscatter is greater with bladeless LASIK during the first 6 months after surgery, patients do not perceive a difference in vision.

Keywords: refractive surgery: LASIK • refractive surgery: comparative studies • 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.

×