Microkeratome versus femtosecond flaps: accuracy and complications
- PMID: 24837579
- DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000070
Microkeratome versus femtosecond flaps: accuracy and complications
Abstract
Purpose of review: To update the knowledge on differences between mechanical microkeratome and femtosecond flaps for laser in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) in terms of accuracy and complications.
Recent findings: Corneal flaps created with the femtosecond laser present a more planar architecture and provide greater precision in flap diameter and thickness; a more uniform flap thickness across the flap diameter and it allows the surgeon to programme the angulation of the flap periphery. Femtosecond LASIK flaps are classically related to complications derived from a more intense inflammatory response, such as diffuse lamellar keratitis and transient light-sensitivity syndrome. Newer femtosecond models allow for much lower energy delivery to cut the flap, to the point the overall inflammatory response is not significantly different from the microkeratome. The incidence of complications such as epithelial defect and flap dislocations is higher with microkeratome flaps.
Summary: This review examines the accuracy and complications of flaps created with femtosecond and microkeratome. Both femtosecond and microkeratome are able to create accurate LASIK flaps. Femtosecond LASIK flaps represent significant improvement in morphology and predictability with implications for safety.
Similar articles
-
Corneal architecture of femtosecond laser and microkeratome flaps imaged by anterior segment optical coherence tomography.J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Jan;35(1):35-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.09.013. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009. PMID: 19101422
-
Influence of original flap creation method on incidence of epithelial ingrowth after LASIK retreatment.J Refract Surg. 2009 Nov;25(11):1039-41. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20090617-13. Epub 2009 Nov 13. J Refract Surg. 2009. PMID: 19921773
-
Comparison of corneal flap morphology using AS-OCT in LASIK with the WaveLight FS200 femtosecond laser versus a mechanical microkeratome.J Refract Surg. 2013 May;29(5):320-4. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20130415-03. J Refract Surg. 2013. PMID: 23659230
-
Complications of femtosecond-assisted laser in-situ keratomileusis flaps.Semin Ophthalmol. 2014 Sep-Nov;29(5-6):363-75. doi: 10.3109/08820538.2014.959194. Semin Ophthalmol. 2014. PMID: 25325862 Review.
-
Femtosecond laser in-situ keratomileusis flap configurations.Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2011 Jul;22(4):245-50. doi: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e3283479ebd. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2011. PMID: 21552126 Review.
Cited by
-
Intraoperative Flap Complications in LASIK Surgery Performed by Ophthalmology Residents.J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2016 Jul-Sep;11(3):263-7. doi: 10.4103/2008-322X.188393. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2016. PMID: 27621782 Free PMC article.
-
The Prevalence of Infectious Keratitis after Keratorefractive Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Study.J Ophthalmol. 2020 Jul 28;2020:6329321. doi: 10.1155/2020/6329321. eCollection 2020. J Ophthalmol. 2020. PMID: 32774907 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Comparison of efficacy, safety, and predictability of laser in situ keratomileusis using two laser suites.Clin Ophthalmol. 2016 Aug 24;10:1639-46. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S110626. eCollection 2016. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016. PMID: 27601880 Free PMC article.
-
A sample predictive model for intraocular pressure following laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia and an "intraocular pressure constant".Int Ophthalmol. 2018 Aug;38(4):1541-1547. doi: 10.1007/s10792-017-0617-0. Epub 2017 Jun 24. Int Ophthalmol. 2018. PMID: 28647783
-
[Laser in situ keratomileusis with microkeratome or femtosecond laser].Ophthalmologe. 2017 Jul;114(7):661-665. doi: 10.1007/s00347-017-0517-8. Ophthalmologe. 2017. PMID: 28589448 Review. German.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials