Surgery
Flap Technology Review—The Case for Femtosecond Laser Flaps in Laser In Situ Keratomileusis
Ronald R Krueger, MD1 and Richard Potvin, MASc ,OD2 1. Medical Director, Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation; 2. Consultant, Science in Vision
Abstract Purpose: To review the literature concerning the relative advantages and disadvantages of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) flaps created with mechanical microkeratomes versus femtosecond laser systems. Setting: Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH 44195. Methods: A review of the literature available related to mechanical microkeratomes and femtosecond laser systems was conducted. Operational limitations, complications, complication rates, and clinical outcomes were compared. Results: Data from the peer-reviewed literature showed that intra-operative complication rates were slightly higher with mechanical microkeratomes, and a training effect was evident. Complication rates with femtosecond laser systems have dropped as the laser spot size and/or energy has decreased and shot frequency has increased. Laser-created flaps showed lower variability in flap thickness and greater variety in programmable flap geometry. Spherocylindrical refractive outcomes were generally similar but higher order aberrations were reported as lower with femtosecond laser flap creation. Conclusion: There is now extensive evidence in the literature comparing these technologies. The results support current femtosecond laser technology as superior to mechanical microkeratomes for the creation of LASIK flaps in refractive surgery.
Keywords Femtosecond laser, laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), surgery, mechanical microkeratomes
Disclosure: Ronald R Krueger, MD, is Medical Director of the Department of Refractive Surgery at the Cole Eye Institute of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Cleveland. He is a consultant for Alcon Laboratories, Inc. Richard Potvin, MASc, OD, is a private consultant providing data analysis and research services to ophthalmologists and the ophthalmology industry. His clients include Alcon Laboratories, Inc. Received: Febraury 27, 2012 Accepted: March 2, 2012 Citation: US Ophthalmic Review, 2012;5(1):18–21 Correspondence: Ronald R Krueger, MD, Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave/i32 Cleveland, OH 44195. E:
Krueger@ccf.org
Support: The publication of this article was funded by Alcon Laboratories, Inc.
It has been more than a decade since the femtosecond laser entered the ophthalmic market as an alternative to the mechanical microkeratome for the creation of flaps in laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).1
The first device
approved in the US was the IntraLase® Femtosecond Laser (Abbott Medical Optics) in 2001. The early successes of this device generated considerable interest in the technology, such that there are now five femtosecond laser systems available to surgeons, each with slightly different characteristics. Table 1 summarizes the key features of each system.2
collateral damage from the shock wave in the tissue is higher with these larger, higher energy pulses, and there is a correspondingly higher inflammatory response.3
A greater number of smaller pulses can achieve
The first widely available IntraLase system operated at 15 kHz, a significantly lower pulse rate (with significantly higher pulse energy) than used in more recently available systems. The fundamental theory behind the use of the femtosecond laser for flap creation is that the laser can perform cutting procedures, much like a blade. A focused pulse of the laser causes photodisruption of the target tissue, effectively creating a microseparation that is then followed by an expanding cavitation bubble, which then collapses to a smaller size. When these pulses are contiguously arranged along a common focal plane, they produce a dissection plane. Larger pulses create larger expanding bubbles, which reduce the number of pulses required to cleave the tissue. However,
18
the same result. The advantage of a smaller spot size is that the energy per pulse can be significantly lower. To maintain a constant ablation time, the frequency of the laser system must rise as the spot size decreases. The cleavage that occurs with the femtosecond laser is functionally equivalent to that which can be achieved with the cutting of a blade. However, there are histologic differences in the two procedures in both the inflammatory4
and healing5 responses.
By the end of 2008, it was estimated that 35–40 % of LASIK surgeries in the US were being performed using a femtosecond laser for flap creation.6
It
is estimated that this number has since increased to up to 70 %. There are now more than 50 publications in the peer-reviewed literature comparing the use of mechanical microkeratomes and femtosecond lasers for LASIK flap creation. The evidence in the literature indicates that there is a good case for adopting femtosecond laser technology for all LASIK flaps. Some of the key arguments are outlined here.
© TOUCH BRIEFINGS 2012
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76