Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/fonts/TeX/fontdata.js

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.48(12) > 1007981

Kim, Kim, Song, and Kim: Factors Associated with the Successful Separation of Corneal Epithelium in Epi-LASIK

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the incidence and perioperative factors of flap-related complications from Epi-LASIK.

Methods

In this study, 122 eyes of 66 patients who had Epi-LASIK using Centurion SESTM epikeratome (Norwood Eye Care, Australia) were enrolled. Associations of pre-operative corneal curvature, white-to-white distance, central corneal thickness, refractive error, dry eye, punctate corneal erosion, pannus, and history of wearing contact lenses with flap-related complications were investigated. To decrease flap-related complications, surgeons pressed patients’ eyelids with a speculum during epithelial separation, and the effect of this method was verified.

Results

Complete epithelial separation was achieved in 74 eyes (60.6%), incomplete separation in 29 eyes (23.8%), and free epithelial sheet in 19 eyes (15.6%). Thin corneas (P=.041), a history of wearing contact lenses (P=.008), and the duration of contact lens use (P=.003) significantly decreased the incidence of successful epithelial separation. Pressing down the eyelids with a speculum while separating the epithelial sheet increased the incidence of complete separation from 50.6% to 83.8% (P=.003).

Conclusions

The risk of flap-related complications from Epi-LASIK may be higher in people who use contact lenses and in people who have thin corneas. The risk can be reduced by pressing the eyelids with a speculum during epithelial separation.

Go to : Goto

References

1. Duffey RJ, Leaming D. US trends in refractive surgery:2003 ISRS/AAO survey. J Refract Surg. 2005; 21:87–91.
2. Lee JB, Seong GJ, Lee JH, et al. Comparison of laser epithelial keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy for low to moderate myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27:565–70.
crossref
3. Chen CC, Chang JH, Lee JB, et al. Human corneal epithelial cell viability and morphology after dilute alcohol exposure. Invest Iphthalmol Vis Sci. 2002; 43:2593–602.
4. Pallikaris IG, Katsanevaki VJ, Kalyvianaki MI, Naoumidi II. Advances in subepithelial excimer refractive surgery techniques: Epi-LASIK. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2003; 14:207–12.
crossref
5. Pallikaris IG, Kalyvianaki MI, Katsanevaki VJ, Ginis HS. Epi-LASIK:preliminary clinical results of an alternative surface ablation procedure. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31:879–85.
6. Azar DT, Ang RT, Lee JB, et al. Laser subepithelial keratomileusis: electron microscopy and visual outcomes of flap photorefractive keratectomy. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2001; 12:323–8.
crossref
7. Nichols KK, Nichols JJ, Mitchell L. The relation between tear film tests in patients with dry eye disease. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2003; 23:553–60.
crossref
8. Kim JH, Oh CH, Song JS, Kim HM. Inadvertent stromal dissection during mechanical separation of the corneal epithelium using an epikeratome. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:1759–63.
crossref
9. Matsumoto JC, Chu YS. Epi-LASIK update:overview of techniques and patient management. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2006; 46:105–15.
10. Shah S, Sebai Sarhan AR, Doyle SJ, et al. The epithelial flap for photorefractive keratectomy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001; 85:393–6.
crossref
11. Vesaluoma M, Perez-Santonja J, Petroll WM, et al. Corneal stromal changes induced by myopic LASIK. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000; 41:369–76.
12. Holden BA, Sweeney DF, Vannas A, et al. Effects of long-term extended contact lens wear on the human cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1985; 26:1489–501.
13. Vannas A, Holden BA, Makitie J. The ultrastructure of contact lens induced changes. Acta Ophthalmol. 1984; 62:320–33.
crossref
14. Bourne WM, Hodge DO, McLaren JW. Estimation of corneal endothelial pump function in long-term contact lens wearers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999; 40:603–11.
15. Bruce AS, Brennan NA. Corneal pathophysiology with contact lens wear. Surv Ophthalmol. 1990; 35:25–58.
crossref
16. Liesegang TJ. Physiologic changes of the cornea with contact lens wear. CLAO J. 2002; 28:12–27.
17. Liu Z, Pflugfelder SC. The effects of long-term contact lens wear on corneal thickness, curvature, and surface regularity. Ophthalmology. 2000; 107:105–11.
18. Braun DA, Anderson Penno EE. Effect of contact lens wear on central corneal thickness measurements. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:1319–22.
crossref
19. Madigan MC, Holden BA. Reduced epithelial adhesion after extended contact lens wear correlates with reduced hemidesmosome density in cat cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1992; 33:314–23.
Go to : Goto

jkos-48-1623f1.tif
Figure 1.
(A) Diagram of corneal surface to describe punctate erosion. The whole cornea was divided into 5 parts: superior, inferior, nasal, temporal, and central (4 mm in diameter in the center). (B) Diagram of the corneal surface to describe pannus.
The whole cornea was divided into 4 parts: superior, inferior, nasal, and temporal.
undefined
jkos-48-1623f2.tif
Figure 2.
(A) Normal orbital structure with speculum (arrow). (B) Changes after pressing down the eyelids. Increased mtraorbital pressure makes the eyeball to protrude and corneal curvature steeper.
undefined
jkos-48-1623f3.tif
Figure 3.
Hypothesis for incomplete separation. (A) In the early stage, the curvature of the cornea is so steep that it is enough to make counter-force against the separator. (B) In the middle stage, counter-force keeps up. (C) In the late stage, the curvature of the cornea flattens gradually and the decreased counter-force may cause incomplete separation.
undefined
Table 1.
Preoperative patients parameter and flap-related complications
Parameters Mean (±SD) P
Complete flap Incomplete flap Free flap
No. of cases (%) 74 (60.6%) 29 (23.8%) 19 (15.6%)
Amount of ablation -4.32±1.8D -4.31± 1.5 D -4.17±1.3D .934
Corneal thickness 547±27 μm, 536±26 μm; 534±31 μm; .041*
White-to-white distance 11.5±0.3 mm 11.5±0.4 mm 11.7±0.3 mm .095
Corneal curvature (5 mm) 42.8± 1.4 43.2±1.5 42.2±1.9D .079

* Statistically significant. One-way ANOVA

†,‡ The same symbols indicate significant difference between groups based on Tukey's multiple comparison test.

Table 2.
Dry eye and flap-related complications
Tearfilm break-up time (second) Incidence (%) Total
Complete flap Incomplete flap Free flap
< 5 5 (62.5) 1 (12.5) 2 (25) 8
5- 9 8 (61.5) 3 (23.1) 2 (15.4) 13
10 ≤ 61 (60.4) 25 (24.8) 15 (14.8) 101

Chi-square, P=.914

Table 3.
Punctate erosion and flap-related complications
Punctate erosion* Incidence (%) Total
Complete flap Incomplete flap Free flap
0 57 (58.2) 23 (23.5) 18 (18.3) 98
1 7 (58.4) 4 (33.3) 1 (8.3) 12
2 5 (71.4) 2 (28.6) 0 (0) 7
2 < 3 (60) 1 (20) 1 (20) 5

Chi-square, P=.857

* Sum of each scale of five corneal regions (superior, inferior, nasal, temporal, and central) graded using a 0-4 scale.

Table 4.
Pannus and flap-related complications
Pannus* Incidence (%) Total
Complete flap Incomplete flap Free flap
0 71 (60.2) 28 (23.7) 19 (16.1) 118
1 2 (66.7) 1 (33.3) 0 (0) 3
1 < 1 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1

Chi-square, P=.866

* Numbers of quadrant of corneal involvement.

Table 5.
Contact lens wear and flap-related complications
Incidence (%) Total P
Complete flap Incomplete flap Free flap
Contact lens use
Non user 41 (75.9) 7 (13) 6 (11.1) 54 .008*
user 33 (48.5) 22 (32.4) 13 (19.1) 68
Type of contact lens
Soft contact lens 24 (47.1) 18 (35.3) 9 (17.6) 51 .648
Hard contact lens 9 (53) 4 (23.5) 4 (23.5) 17

Chi-square

* Statistically significant.

Table 6.
Pattern of contact lens wear and flap-related complications
Pattern Mean±SD P
Complete flap Incomplete flap Free flap
Frequency of CL wear (day/week) 4.06±2.03 6.10±1.09 5.38±1.69 .133
Period of CL wear (year) 6.72±4.21 9.53±4.07 5.43±4.04 .003*

* Statistically significant. One-way ANOVA

The same symbols indicate significant difference between groups based on Tukey's multiple comparison test.

Table 7.
Eyeball protrusion method and flap-related complications
Method Incidence (%) Total
Complete Incomplete Free flap flap flap
Conventional method 43 (50.6%) 25 (29.4%) 17 (20.0%) 85
Eyeball protrusion method 31 (83.8%) 4 (10.8%) 2 (5.4%) 37

Chi-square, P= .003

TOOLS
Similar articles