Korean J Ophthalmol.  2019 Apr;33(2):113-121. 10.3341/kjo.2018.0035.

Comparison of Laser In Situ Keratomileusis Flap Morphology and Predictability by WaveLight FS200 Femtosecond Laser and Moria Microkeratome: An Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography Study

• Eldaly ZH
• Abdelsalam MA
• Hussein MS
• Nassr MA

• KMID: 2442615
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2018.0035

Abstract

PURPOSE
To evaluate laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) flap thickness predictability and morphology by femtosecond (FS) laser and microkeratome (MK) using anterior segment optical coherence tomography.
METHODS
Fifty-two candidates for the LASIK procedure were stratified into two groups: FS laser-assisted (Allegretto FS-200) and MK flap creation (Moria 2). Flap thickness was determined at five points. The side-cut angle was measured in three directions at the margin interface. LASIK flap assessment was performed one month postoperatively by Spectralis anterior segment optical coherence tomography.
RESULTS
Fifty-two patients (93 eyes) were recruited; 49 eyes were stratified to the FS group and 44 eyes to the MK group. The FS group had relatively even flap configurations, and the MK group had meniscus-shaped flaps. Mean differences between planned and actual flap thickness were 12.93 ± 8.89 and 19.91 ± 5.77 µm in the FS and MK groups, respectively. In thin flaps (100 to 110 µm), there was a significant disparity between the two groups (7.80 ± 4.71 and 19.44 ± 4.46 µm in the FS and MK groups, respectively). However, in thicker flaps (130 µm), comparable flap thickness disparity was achieved (18.54 ± 9.52 and 20.83 ± 5.99 µm in the FS and MK groups, respectively). Mean side-cut angle was 74.29 ± 5.79 degrees and 32.34 ± 4.94 degrees in the FS and MK groups, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Comparable flap thickness predictability was achieved in thicker flaps (130 µm), while the FS laser technique yielded a more predictable result in thinner flaps (100 to 110 µm). Different flap morphology was observed in meniscus flaps in MK-LASIK and flap morphology in FS-LASIK.

Keyword

Anterior segment optical coherence tomography; Flap morphology; Laser in situ keratomileusis

MeSH Terms

Humans
Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ*
Tomography, Optical Coherence*

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) flap side-cut angle and edge outline in (A) microkeratome-assisted LASIK and (B) femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK groups by anterior segment optical coherence tomography.

• 

  Fig. 2 Average flap thickness in femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and microkeratome-assisted LASIK groups as measured in five different locations (centrally, 1 mm nasally and temporally, 2.5 mm nasally and temporally across horizontal meridian). The difference between two groups is more evident in planned flap thickness of 100 to 110 µm. (A) Planned flap thickness (pooled date), (B) planned LASIK flap (130 µm), and (C) planned LASIK flap (100 to 110 µm). N = nasal; T = temporal.

• 

  Fig. 3 Frequency of distribution of postoperative (microkeratome-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis [MK-LASIK] and femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis [FS-LASIK]) manifest spherical equivalent.

Reference

1. Sugar A, Rapuano CJ, Culbertson WW, et al. Laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia and astigmatism: safety and efficacy: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2002; 109:175–187.

2. Pietila J, Makinen P, Suominen S, et al. Corneal flap measurements in laser in situ keratomileusis using the Moria M2 automated microkeratome. J Refract Surg. 2005; 21:377–385.

3. Knorz MC. Flap and interface complications in LASIK. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2002; 13:242–245.

4. Ambrosio R Jr, Wilson SE. Complications of laser in situ keratomileusis: etiology, prevention, and treatment. J Refract Surg. 2001; 17:350–379.

5. Kurtz RM, Liu X, Elner VM, et al. Photodisruption in the human cornea as a function of laser pulse width. J Refract Surg. 1997; 13:653–658.

6. Salomao MQ, Wilson SE. Femtosecond laser in laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010; 36:1024–1032.

7. Muallem MS, Yoo SH, Romano AC, et al. Flap and stromal bed thickness in laser in situ keratomileusis enhancement. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30:2295–2302.

8. Cheng HC, Chen YT, Yeh SI, Yau CW. Errors of residual stromal thickness estimation in LASIK. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2008; 39:107–113.

9. Grewal DS, Brar GS, Grewal SP. Assessment of central corneal thickness in normal, keratoconus, and post-laser in situ keratomileusis eyes using Scheimpflug imaging, spectral domain optical coherence tomography, and ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010; 36:954–964.

10. Ahn H, Kim JK, Kim CK, et al. Comparison of laser in situ keratomileusis flaps created by 3 femtosecond lasers and a microkeratome. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37:349–357.

11. Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012; 9:671–675.

12. Prospero Ponce CM, Rocha KM, Smith SD, Krueger RR. Central and peripheral corneal thickness measured with optical coherence tomography, Scheimpflug imaging, and ultrasound pachymetry in normal, keratoconus-suspect, and post-laser in situ keratomileusis eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009; 35:1055–1062.

13. Pajic B, Vastardis I, Pajic-Eggspuehler B, et al. Femtosecond laser versus mechanical microkeratome-assisted flap creation for LASIK: a prospective, randomized, paired-eye study. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014; 8:1883–1889.

14. Zhang XX, Zhong XW, Wu JS, et al. Corneal flap morphological analysis using anterior segment optical coherence tomography in laser in situ keratomileusis with femtosecond lasers versus mechanical microkeratome. Int J Ophthalmol. 2012; 5:69–73.

15. Zhang Y, Chen YG, Xia YJ. Comparison of corneal flap morphology using AS-OCT in LASIK with the WaveLight FS200 femtosecond laser versus a mechanical microkeratome. J Refract Surg. 2013; 29:320–324.

16. Zhou Y, Zhang J, Tian L, Zhai C. Comparison of the Ziemer FEMTO LDV femtosecond laser and Moria M2 mechanical microkeratome. J Refract Surg. 2012; 28:189–194.

17. Liu Q, Zhou YH, Zhang J, et al. Comparison of corneal flaps created by Wavelight FS200 and Intralase FS60 femtosecond lasers. Int J Ophthalmol. 2016; 9:1006–1010.

18. von Jagow B, Kohnen T. Corneal architecture of femtosecond laser and microkeratome flaps imaged by anterior segment optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009; 35:35–41.

19. Zheng Y, Zhou Y, Zhang J, et al. Comparison of laser in situ keratomileusis flaps created by 2 femtosecond lasers. Cornea. 2015; 34:328–333.