nach oben

Lasers in Medical Science

Erschienen in:

29.08.2019 | Original Article

Changes in corneal biomechanics during small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK)

verfasst von: Kaiwei Cao, Lina Liu, Ting Yu, Feng Chen, Ji Bai, Ting Liu

Erschienen in: Lasers in Medical Science | Ausgabe 3/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Observe the influence of femtosecond laser cutting on corneal biomechanics during small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) or femtosecond-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and assess the biomechanical changes following the operation. Prospective, non-randomized study. A total of 80 eyes from 80 patients were treated with either SMILE or FS-LASIK. Parameters of inverse concave radius, deformation amplitude ratio 2 mm or 1 mm (DA ratio 2 mm or 1 mm), highest concavity radius (HC radius), biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure (bIOP), and central corneal thickness (CCT) measured by Corvis ST II were recorded at 1 day preoperatively, immediately after the lenticule or flap creation, during subsequent lenticule extraction or excimer laser ablation, and during follow-up at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months postoperatively. After lenticule creation, the DA ratio 2 mm or 1 mm was bigger (p < 0.05), meanwhile, CCT was thicker (p < 0.05) than with flap creation. Partial parameters changed significantly after lenticule creation or flap creation, and all parameters changed significantly after tissue removal. All parameters showed no significant differences between the two groups (p > 0.05) after operation. The variations in bIOP (ΔbIOP) after operation were significantly less than those in Δnon-contact IOP (p < 0.001) in two groups. Femtosecond laser cutting during lenticule creation has a greater impact on corneal biomechanics than flap creation. Both the femtosecond laser cutting and removal of tissue degrade corneal biomechanics; however, these effects may be predominantly a result of tissue removal. SMILE and FS-LASIK have no differences in corneal biomechanics when the same CCT is consumed. bIOP is more reliable after the operation, but further study is essential.

Anderle R, Ventruba J (2013) The current state of refractive surgery. Coll Antropol 37(Suppl 1):237–241PubMed

Tataru CP (2017) The current state of refractive surgery. Rom J Ophthalmol 61(4):237–238CrossRef

Wang JC, Hufnagel TJ, Buxton DF (2003) Bilateral keratectasia after unilateral laser in situ keratomileusis: a retrospective diagnosis of ectatic corneal disorder. J Cataract Refract Surg 29(10):2015–2018CrossRef

Roberts C (2005) Biomechanical customization: the next generation of laser refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 31(1):2–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.11.032 CrossRefPubMed

Andreassen TT, Simonsen AH, Oxlund H (1980) Biomechanical properties of keratoconus and normal corneas. Exp Eye Res 31(4):435–441CrossRef

Schmack I, Dawson DG, McCarey BE, Waring GO 3rd, Grossniklaus HE, Edelhauser HF (2005) Cohesive tensile strength of human LASIK wounds with histologic, ultrastructural, and clinical correlations. J Refract Surg 21(5):433–445CrossRef

Dupps WJ Jr, Wilson SE (2006) Biomechanics and wound healing in the cornea. Exp Eye Res 83(4):709–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2006.03.015 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

MacRae S (2010) Thin-flap femtosecond LASIK. J Refract Surg 26(7):469–470; author reply 470. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20100512-03 CrossRefPubMed

Chen S, Feng Y, Stojanovic A, Jankov MR 2nd, Wang Q (2012) IntraLase femtosecond laser vs mechanical microkeratomes in LASIK for myopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Refract Surg 28(1):15–24. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20111228-02 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Sekundo W, Kunert KS, Blum M (2011) Small incision corneal refractive surgery using the small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) procedure for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism: results of a 6 month prospective study. Br J Ophthalmol 95(3):335–339. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2009.174284 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Joda AA, Shervin MM, Kook D, Elsheikh A (2016) Development and validation of a correction equation for Corvis tonometry. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 19(9):943–953CrossRef

12.

Vinciguerra R, Ambrosio R Jr, Elsheikh A, Roberts CJ, Lopes B, Morenghi E, Azzolini C, Vinciguerra P (2016) Detection of keratoconus with a new biomechanical index. J Refract Surg 32(12):803–810. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20160629-01 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Lee H, Roberts CJ, Kim TI, Ambrosio R Jr, Elsheikh A, Yong Kang DS (2017) Changes in biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure and dynamic corneal response parameters before and after transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy and femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 43(12):1495–1503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.08.019 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Shen Y, Zhao J, Yao P, Miao H, Niu L, Wang X, Zhou X (2014) Changes in corneal deformation parameters after lenticule creation and extraction during small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) procedure. PLoS One 9(8):e103893. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103893 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Uzbek AK, Kamburoglu G, Mahmoud AM, Roberts CJ (2011) Change in biomechanical parameters after flap creation using the Intralase femtosecond laser and subsequent excimer laser ablation. Curr Eye Res 36(7):614–619. https://doi.org/10.3109/02713683.2010.546952 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Huseynova T, Waring GO, Roberts C, Krueger RR, Tomita M (2014) Corneal biomechanics as a function of intraocular pressure and pachymetry by dynamic infrared signal and Scheimpflug imaging analysis in normal eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 157(4):885–893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2013.12.024 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Vinciguerra R, Elsheikh A, Roberts CJ, Ambrosio R Jr, Kang DS, Lopes BT, Morenghi E, Azzolini C, Vinciguerra P (2016) Influence of pachymetry and intraocular pressure on dynamic corneal response parameters in healthy patients. J Refract Surg 32(8):550–561. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20160524-01 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Liu CH, Sun CC, Hui-Kang Ma D, Chien-Chieh Huang J, Liu CF, Chen HF, Hsiao CH (2014) Opaque bubble layer: incidence, risk factors, and clinical relevance. J Cataract Refract Surg 40(3):435–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.08.055 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Son G, Lee J, Jang C, Choi KY, Cho BJ, Lim TH (2017) Possible risk factors and clinical effects of opaque bubble layer in small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). J Refract Surg 33(1):24–29. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20161006-06 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Kanellopoulos AJ, Asimellis G (2013) Digital analysis of flap parameter accuracy and objective assessment of opaque bubble layer in femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK: a novel technique. Clin Ophthalmol 7:343–351. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S39644 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Osman IM, Helaly HA, Abdalla M, Shousha MA (2016) Corneal biomechanical changes in eyes with small incision lenticule extraction and laser assisted in situ keratomileusis. BMC Ophthalmol 16:123. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-016-0304-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Chen M, Yu M, Dai J (2016) Comparison of biomechanical effects of small incision lenticule extraction and laser-assisted subepithelial keratomileusis. Acta Ophthalmol 94(7):e586–e591. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.13035 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Randleman JB (2013) Mathematical model to compare the relative tensile strength of the cornea after PRK, LASIK, and small incision lenticule extraction. J Refract Surg 29(7):454–460. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20130617-03 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Sinha Roy A, Dupps WJ Jr, Roberts CJ (2014) Comparison of biomechanical effects of small-incision lenticule extraction and laser in situ keratomileusis: finite-element analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg 40(6):971–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.08.065 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Spiru B, Kling S, Hafezi F, Sekundo W (2017) Biomechanical differences between femtosecond lenticule extraction (FLEx) and small incision lenticule extraction (SmILE) tested by 2D-extensometry in ex vivo porcine eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 58(5):2591–2595. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.16-20211 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Spiru B, Kling S, Hafezi F, Sekundo W (2018) Biomechanical properties of human cornea tested by two-dimensional extensiometry ex vivo in fellow eyes: femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK versus SMILE. J Refract Surg 34(6):419–423. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20180402-05 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Wang B, Zhang Z, Naidu RK, Chu R, Dai J, Qu X, Yu Z, Zhou H (2016) Comparison of the change in posterior corneal elevation and corneal biomechanical parameters after small incision lenticule extraction and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK for high myopia correction. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 39(3):191–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2016.01.007 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Pedersen IB, Bak-Nielsen S, Vestergaard AH, Ivarsen A, Hjortdal J (2014) Corneal biomechanical properties after LASIK, ReLEx flex, and ReLEx smile by Scheimpflug-based dynamic tonometry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 252(8):1329–1335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-014-2667-6 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Zhang J, Zheng L, Zhao X, Xu Y, Chen S (2016) Corneal biomechanics after small-incision lenticule extraction versus Q-value-guided femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis. J Curr Ophthalmol 28(4):181–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joco.2016.08.004 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Sefat SM, Wiltfang R, Bechmann M, Mayer WJ, Kampik A, Kook D (2016) Evaluation of changes in human corneas after femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) using non-contact tonometry and ultra-high-speed camera (Corvis ST). Curr Eye Res 41(7):917–922. https://doi.org/10.3109/02713683.2015.1082185 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Mastropasqua L, Calienno R, Lanzini M, Colasante M, Mastropasqua A, Mattei PA, Nubile M (2014) Evaluation of corneal biomechanical properties modification after small incision lenticule extraction using Scheimpflug-based noncontact tonometer. Biomed Res Int 2014:290619. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/290619 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Igarashi A, Kobashi H, Sato N, Ishii R (2014) Intraindividual comparison of changes in corneal biomechanical parameters after femtosecond lenticule extraction and small-incision lenticule extraction. J Cataract Refract Surg 40(6):963–970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.12.013 CrossRefPubMed

33.

Agca A, Ozgurhan EB, Demirok A, Bozkurt E, Celik U, Ozkaya A, Cankaya I, Yilmaz OF (2014) Comparison of corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor after small incision lenticule extraction and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK: a prospective fellow eye study. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 37(2):77–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2013.05.003 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Wang D, Liu M, Chen Y, Zhang X, Xu Y, Wang J, To CH, Liu Q (2014) Differences in the corneal biomechanical changes after SMILE and LASIK. J Refract Surg 30(10):702–707. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20140903-09 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Kanellopoulos AJ (2018) Comparison of corneal biomechanics after myopic small-incision lenticule extraction compared to LASIK: an ex vivo study. Clin Ophthalmol 12:237–245. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S153509 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Eliasy A, Chen KJ, Vinciguerra R, Maklad O, Vinciguerra P, Ambrosio R Jr, Roberts CJ, Elsheikh A (2018) Ex-vivo experimental validation of biomechanically-corrected intraocular pressure measurements on human eyes using the CorVis ST. Exp Eye Res 175:98–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2018.06.013 CrossRefPubMed

37.

Ang M, Chaurasia SS, Angunawela RI, Poh R, Riau A, Tan D, Mehta JS (2012) Femtosecond lenticule extraction (FLEx): clinical results, interface evaluation, and intraocular pressure variation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53(3):1414–1421. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.11-8808 CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Changes in corneal biomechanics during small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK)
verfasst von: Kaiwei Cao
Lina Liu
Ting Yu
Feng Chen
Ji Bai
Ting Liu
Publikationsdatum: 29.08.2019
Verlag: Springer London
Erschienen in: Lasers in Medical Science / Ausgabe 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0268-8921
Elektronische ISSN: 1435-604X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-019-02854-w

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Changes in corneal biomechanics during small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK)

Abstract

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2020

Photobiomodulation therapy and NMES improve muscle strength and jumping performance in young volleyball athletes: a randomized controlled trial study in Brazil

Comparison of navigated laser and conventional single-spot laser system for induced pain during panretinal photocoagulation

Correction to: Photobiomodulation by dual-wavelength low-power laser effects on infected pressure ulcers

Are the ergogenic effects of photobiomodulation therapy age-dependent? A randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial

Correction to: Are the ergogenic effects of photobiomodulation therapy age-dependent? A randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial

Effects of photobiomodulation in the treatment of fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials