Comparison of Short Term Clinical Results Between Epi-LASIK and Femtosecond LASIK

Sung Il Kim; Woong-Joo Whang; Yong Soo Byun; Ji Hye Song; Kyung Sun Na; Choun-Ki Joo

doi:10.3341/jkos.2010.51.12.1573

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.51(12) > 1008703

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Whang, Byun, Song, Na, and Joo: Comparison of Short Term Clinical Results Between Epi-LASIK and Femtosecond LASIK

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2010;51(12):1573-1578.

Published online: 7 September 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2010.51.12.1573

Comparison of Short Term Clinical Results Between Epi-LASIK and Femtosecond LASIK

Sung Il Kim, MD, Woong-Joo Whang, MD, Yong Soo Byun, MD, Ji Hye Song, MD, Kyung Sun Na, MD, Choun-Ki Joo, MD

Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, The Catholic University of Korea School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Choun Ki Joo, MD Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital #505 Banpo-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul 137-701, Korea Tel: 82-2-2258-1188, Fax: 82-2-533-3801, E-mail: ckjoo@catholic.ac.kr

Received 10 March 2010 Accepted 29 October 2010

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To compare short-term clinical results of femtosecond LASIK with those of epi-LASIK.

Methods

Twenty subjects (40 eyes) underwent femtosecond LASIK and 20 subjects (40 eyes) underwent epi-LASIK for myopia with astigmatism. The results of each surgery were compared with regard to visual acuity, spherical equivalent, safety, efficacy, stability, predictability and high order aberration.

Results

Postoperative uncorrected visual acuities were 0.51 ± 0.11, 0.95 ± 0.08, and 0.97 ± 0.08 for epi-LASIK and 0.76 ±0.19, 0.97 ± 0.07, and 0.98 ± 0.06 for femtosecond LASIK at one week, one month, and two months after surgery, respectively. Femtosecond LASIK showed faster improvement in visual acuity. Postoperative spherical equivalents were −0.83 ± 0.24, −0.31 ± 0.19, and −0.27 ± 0.09 for epi-LASIK and −0.47 ± 0.21, −0.28 ± 0.15, and −0.25 ± 0.12 for femtosecond LASIK. Safety, efficacy, stability, and predictability showed no differences between the two groups. High order aberrations were increased significantly; however, no significant difference between the two groups was found.

Conclusions

Both epi-LASIK and femtosecond LASIK are effective for surgical correction of myopia with fast visual rehabilitation. In addition, epi-LASIK and femtosecond LASIK showed good safeties, efficacies, predictabilities, and stabilities.

Keywords: Epi-LASIK, Femtosecond LASIK, Myopia

References

1. Trokel SL, Srinivasan R, Braren B. Excimer laser surgery of the cornea. Am J Ophthalmol. 1983; 96:710–5.

2. Camellin M. Laser epithelial keratomileusis for myopia. J Refract Surg. 2003; 19:666–70.

3. Pallikaris IG, Katsanevaki VJ, Kalyvianaki MI, Naoumidi II. Advances in subepithelial excimer refractive surgery techniques: Epi-LASIK. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2003; 14:207–12.

4. Katsanevaki VJ, Kalyvianaki MI, Kavroulaki DS, Pallikaris IG. Epipolis laser in-situ keratomileusis: an evolving surface ablation procedure for refractive corrections. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006; 17:389–93.

5. Trattler WB, Barnes SD. Current trends in advanced surface ablation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008; 19:330–4.

6. Netto MV, Mohan RR, Ambrósio R, et al. Wound healing in the cornea: a review of refractive surgery complications and new prospects for therapy. Cornea. 2005; 24:509–22.

7. Soong HK, Malta JB. Femtosecond lasers in ophthalmology. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009; 147:189–97. e2.

8. Kim JH, Lee D, Rhee KI. Flap thickness reproducibility in laser in situ keratomileusis with a femtosecond laser: optical coherence tomography measurement. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34:132–6.

9. Choi YS, Jung HJ, Lee KH. Comparison of clinical result of LASIK using between Femtosecond Laser and Microkeratome for correction of myopia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2007; 48:1041–7.

10. Durrie DS, Kezirian GM. Femtosecond laser versus mechanical keratome flaps in wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis: prospective contralateral eye study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31:120–6.

11. Patel SV, Maguire LJ, McLaren JW, et al. Femtosecond laser versus mechanical microkeratome for LASIK: a randomized controlled study. Ophthalmology. 2007; 114:1482–90.

12. Montes-Mico R, Rodriguez-Galietero A, Alio JL. Femtosecond laser versus mechanical keratome LASIK for myopia. Ophthalmology. 2007; 114:62–8.

13. Kim JH, Lee JE, Kim J-Y, Tchah HW. Early postoperative pain and visual outcomes following epipolis-laser in situ keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2010; 24:143–7.

14. Teus MA, de Benito-Llopis L, Garcia-Gonzalez M. Comparison of visual results between laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy and epipolis laser in situ keratomileusis to correct myopia and myopic astigmatism. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008; 146:357–62.

Figure 1.

Changes of uncorrected visual acuity at 1 week interval for postoperative 2 months after epi-LASIK and Femtosecond LASIK.^* p value 0.05; t-test

Figure 2.

Changes of best corrected visual acuity at 1 week interval for postoperative 2 months after epi-LASIK and Femtosecond LASIK.^* p value <0.05; t-test

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of eyes for epi-LASIK and Femtosecond LASIK

	Epi-LASIK^*	Femtosecond LASIK^†	p value^¶
Age, mean (yr)	24 ± 6.7	23 ± 5.7	0.829
Sex (male/female)	7/13 (20)	6/14 (20)	
Preoperative UCVA^‡	0.15 ± 0.12	0.14 ± 0.10	0.315
Preoperative BSCVA^§	0.98 ± 0.09	0.97 ± 0.13	0.256
Sphere (D^∏)	−5.05 ± 3.1	−5.35 ± 2.8	0.391
Cylinder (D)	−2.32 ± 1.8	−2.55 ± 2.0	0.341
SE^# (D)	−5.87 ± 2.3	−6.12 ± 2.7	0.298
Pachymetry (µm)	552 ± 61.8	548 ± 53.4	0.385

^* Epi-LASIK = Epipolis laser in situ keratomileusis

^† Femtosecond LASIK = Femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis

^‡ UCVA = uncorrected visual acuity

^§ BSCVA = best spectacle corrected visual acuity

^∏ D = diopter

^# SE = spherical equivalent

^¶ t-test.

Table 2.

Mean uncorrected visual acuity after epi-LASIK and Femtosecond LASIK at postoperative 1 week and 1, 2 months

	Epi-LASIK^*	Femtosecond LASIK^†	p value^‡
1 week	0.51 ± 0.14	0.76 ± 0.19	< 0.01
1 month	0.95 ± 0.08	0.97 ± 0.07	0.419
2 months	0.97 ± 0.08	0.98 ± 0.06	0.336

^* Epi-LASIK = Epipolis laser in-situ keratomileusis

^† Femtosecond LASIK = Femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis

^‡ t-test.

Table 3.

Mean spherical equivalents after epi-LASIK and Femtosecond LASIK at postoperative 1 week and 1, 2 months

	Epi-LASIK^*	Femtosecond LASIK^†	p value^‡
1 wk	−0.83 ± 0.24	−0.47 ± 0.21	0.007
1 mon	−0.31 ± 0.19	−0.28 ± 0.15	0.237
2 mon	−0.27 ± 0.09	−0.25 ± 0.12	0.342

^* Epi-LASIK = Epipolis laser in situ keratomileusis

^† Femtosecond LASIK = Femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis

^‡ t-test.

Table 4.

Safety, efficacy, and predictability of epi-LASIK and Femtosecond LASIK at postoperative 2 months (in percentage)

	Epi-LASIK^*	Femtosecond LASIK^†	p value^∏
Safety (BSCVA^‡)			
Loss of 1 line	6	4	0.386
No loss	84	83	
Gain of 1 line	10	13	
Efficacy			
≥ 20/20	82	90	0.183
Predictability			
± 0.50 D^§	40	42	0.682
± 1.00 D	84	89	0.329
Stability			
Δ SE (SE_2mo-SE_1mo)	0.04	0.03	0.728

^* Epi-LASIK = Epipolis laser in situ keratomileusis

^† Femtosecond LASIK = Femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis

^‡ BSCVA = best spectacle corrected visual acuity

^§ D = diopter

^∏ t-test.

Table 5.

Total HOA, coma, trefoil, spherical aberration of epi-LASIK and Femtosecond LASIK patients at pre- and postoperative 2 months (RMS, in microns)

	Epi-LASIK^*				Femtosecond LASIK^†
	Total HOA^‡	Coma	Trefoil	SA^§	Total HOA	Coma	Trefoil	SA
Preop	0.215	0.174	0.072	0.081	0.197	0.183	0.070	0.123
Postop at 2 mo	0.342	0.236	0.126	0.103	0.285	0.208	0.089	0.165
Changes(%)	159	136	175	127	145	114	127	134
p value^∏	<0.01	0.025	<0.01	0.034	0.017	0.038	0.012	0.045

^* Epi-LASIK = Epipolis laser in-situ keratomileusis

^† Femtosecond LASIK = Femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis

^‡ HOA = High order aberration

^§ SA = Spherical aberration

^∏ t-test.

Table 6.

Flap thickness at postoperative 1 month according to intended flap thickness

Intended flap thickness (μm)	n	Mean (μm)	Range (μm)
110	22	114.4	104–128
120	8	122.1	109–132
130	10	134.1	123–142

TOOLS

Similar articles