View
68
Download
2
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Marija Antičić, Maja Bohač, Mateja Končarević, Alma Biščević, Sunčana Kovačić, Nikica Gabrić
Specialty Eye Hospital “Svjetlost”
School of Medicine, University of Rijeka
20th ECSRS Winter Meeting Athens
Comparison of Laser In Situ Keratomileusis Flaps Created by 3
Femtosecond Lasers
DISCLOSURE: None of the authors have a financial interest in any of the products or devices noted
FEMTOSECOND LASERS
• The prototype of the first ophtalmic surgical FS laser system was designed and constructed by Dr Juhasz and his associates at the University of Michigan College of Engineering Center for Ultra-fast Optical Scienses (CUOS) in the early 1990s 1
• Have changed refractive surgery in the last 15 years since the market release of the Intralase Femtosecond laser (Abbot Medical Optics, Il, USA) in 20011
• The bladeless flap creation rapidly gained popularity because of its safety, fast recovery and excellent results2
1. Soong HK, Malta JB, Femtosecond lasers in ophtalmology. Am J Ophtalmol 147, 189-197 (2009)2. Durrie DS, Kezirian GM, Femtosecond laser versus mechanical microkeratome flaps in wavefront-guided laser in situ
keratomileusis: prospective contralatelar study. J Cataract Refractive Surg 31, 120-6 (2005)
Why Femtosecond lasers in corneal surgery?
• Ultra-short pulse duration (10-15 sec.) has the ability to deliver laser energy with minimal collatelar damage to the adjacent tissue (1μm).
High focus quality inside the cornea
• Precisely cut corneal flaps are essential for successful LASIK.
• Create uniform thickness planar configuration flaps; microkeratomes create flaps with less uniform thickness.
• The creation of a flap of intended thickness is crutial for obtaining an appropriate residual stromal thickness.
Mecanism of action: Photodistruption
• FSL energy is absorbed by the tissue, resulting in plasma formation.
• The plasma of free electrons and ionized molecules rapidly expands creating cavitation bubbles.
• The force of the cavitation bubble creation separates the tissue.
• Multiple pulses are applied next to each other to create a cleavage plane and ultimately the LASIK flap.
Advantages:
• Reduced incidence of flap complications like buttonholes, free caps, irregular cuts etc.
• Control over flap diameter and thickness, side cut angle, hinge position and lenght.
• Increased precision with improved flap safety and better thickness predictability.
• Capability of cutting thinner flaps to accommodate thin corneas and high refractive errors.
• Stronger flap adherence.• The ability to retreat immediately if there is incomplete FS laser
ablation.• Decreased incidence of epithelial ingrowth and dry eye.• Better contrast sensitivity• Less increase in IOP required
Disadvantages:
• Opaque bubble layer (OBL)
• Transient light sensitivity syndrome (TLSS)
• Increased difficulty in lifting the flap if retreatment is requred after that (because of good adherence)
• Increased cost.
Femtosecond lasers used in our study:
• Intralase FSTM 150KHZ (Abbot Medical Optics, Abbott Park, Illinois)
• Femto LDVTM (Ziemer Group, Port, Switzerland)
• VisuMax Femtosecond System® (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany)
Technical Features of Femtosecond Laser Devices for Flap Creation
Feature Intralase IFS Ziemer LDV Carl Zeiss VisuMax
Puls Rate 150 KHZ 1MHZ 500 KHZ
Pulse duration 500 fs 200 -300 fs 400 (?) fs
Spot size 1-5m 2 m 1 m
Pulse energy 500-1300 nJ 100 nJ 300 nJ
Concept Amplified Oscillator Amplified
Additional feature Greatest number of treated eyes
Portable, Low energy FlexSmile
Suction Manual Computer controlled within handpiece
Computer controlled low Pressure
Laser-Cornea Coupling Flat Flat Curved
Customizable features High Very limited Very high
Purpose• To compare corneal flap morphology created by the -Intralase FS (femtosecond group 1) -Ziemer LDV (femtosecond group 2) -VisuMax (femtosecond group 3)• The patients were divided into 3 groups based on the
device used for flap creation.• Comparative case series, on patients with myopia and
myopic astigmatism who were consecutively scheduled for bilateral LASIK treatment –from February 2013 to July 2015.
Mean ± SD
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Characteristic Intralase IFS Ziemer LDV VisuMax
No. eyes 82 82 82
Mean age, yr 25.0±5.1 26±5.7 26±5.5
Mean SE, D -6.4±2.2 -6.7±2.8 -6.5±2.5
Mean CCT, μm 560±25,6 564±28.9 559±27,3
Mean corneal curvature, D
44±1.8 43.5±1.4 43.8±1.7
CCT, central corneal thickness; SE, spherical equivalent refraction
PREOPERATIVE DEMOGRAPHICS
We evaluated:• Central flap thickness• Mean flap thickness• Meridian flap uniformity• Difference between the mean central and mid-peripheral
flap thickness 2 mm in the horisontal and vertical plane • Flap thickness predictability (mean deviation between the
achieved and attempted flap thickness)• OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena Germany) for assessing
flap regularity, uniformity and predictability• Flap thickness was determined at 10 points, 3 months
postoperatively• Intented flap thickness was 110 μm
SURGICAL PROCEDURE
Characteristic Intralase IFS Ziemer LDV VisuMaxFlap thickness, μm 110 110 110
Flap diameter, mm 9,0 9,5 9,0
Angle side cut, degree 90 28 Fixed 90
Pattern raster Raster/mechanicals
spiral
Raster energy 0,45 uJ/Pulse 0,1 uJ/Pulse 0,4 uJ/Pulse
hinge superiorly superiorly superiorly
SURGICAL PROCEDURE
Matherials and Methods• Measurements of the flaps in the 0-, and 90- degree lines
0o
45o
90o
135o
180o
225o 270o 315o
Statistical analyses were performed using statistical software MedCalc for Windows, version 11.5.1.0 (MedCalc Software, Mariakerke, Belgium)
ResultsCentral and Mean Flap Thickness
Central mean SD
1. Ziemer LDV 94,04 3,20
2. VisuMax 105,58 15,55
3. Intralase IFS 111,0 11,50
Kruskal Wallis test: P<0.001, post hoc test (p<0,05, 1 vs. 2 and 3, 2 vs 1, 3 vs 1)
Mean flap mean SD
1. ZiemerLDV 110,78 11,29
2. VisuMax 105,68 16,5
3. Intralase IFS 107,44 10,76
Kruskal Wallis test: P<0.001, post hoc test (p<0,05, 1 vs. 2 and 3, 2 vs 1, 3 vs 1)
ZIEMER LDV (mean +/- SD )
Kruskal Wallis test P<0,001Flaps in femtosecond laser Ziemer LDV had the assymerty between the center and periphery.These findings are consistent with other authors. 3
3. Hyunseok Ahn, MD, Jin-Kook Kim et al. Comparison of laser in situ keratomileusis flaps created by 3 femtosecond lasers and a microkeratome. J Cataract Refract Surg; 37:349–357 (2011).
VisuMax (mean +/- SD )
Kruskal Wallis test P= 0,609
The disparity between center and periphery flap thickness was not statistically significant.
Intralase IFS (mean +/- SD )
Kruskal Wallis test P= 0,323
The disparity between center and periphery flap thickness was not statistically significant.
Meridian flap uniformity
Mean(SD)
90 degrees 180 degrees P
1. ZiemerLDV 110,73 (11,31) 110,83 (11,30) 0,981
2. VisuMax 107,46 (16,67) 103,9 (16,41) 0,365
3. Intralase IFS 108,50 (11,05) 106,38 (11,42) 0,596
Meridian flap uniformity measured at the 10 measurement points at 90- and 180- degrees were uniform and regular for each femtosecond device.
The mean center vs. mid-periphery 2 mm in the horisontal and vertical plane
Central SD cent Mid perif SD perif P
1. ZiemerLDV 94,048 3,20 108,27 4,63 <0,001
2. VisuMax 105,58 15,55 108,125 17,09 0,667
3. Intralase IFS 111,00 11,5 106,36 10,37 0,103
Mann Whitney U test
0o
90o
Results
Ziemer LDV Intralase IFS VisuMax0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
9.29.6
13.5
Flap thickness Predictability(the mean deviation between the achieved and attempted flap thickness)
Diffe
renc
e (μ
m)
ResultsFlap thickness Accuracy
(the mean deviation between the achieved and attempted flap thickness)
Percentage %
Percentage (%)μm <5 5-10 >10 P
1. ZiemerLDV 39 30 31 0,417
2. VisuMax 40 36,7 23,3 0,496
3. Intralase IFS 40,8 30,9 27,3 0,385
Conclusions• Although the central flap thickness created by the Ziemer
LDV was less than that created by the Intralase and VisuMax, measurements of 3 femtosecond lasers were close to the intended thickness.
• The Femto-LDV system was the most predictable in terms of flap creation (intended versus measured flap thickness).
• Flaps in the Visumax group had the least difference between the mean peripheral and the central flap thickness.
• Flap morphology differed according to the system used.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
Recommended