Laboratory model of bursting pressures of femtosecond laser-assisted penetrating keratoplasty wounds using novel pattern designs.
Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, 10 Koret Way, K-304, San Francisco, CA 94143-0730, USAThe British journal of ophthalmology (Impact Factor: 2.92). 06/2012; 96(9):1273-4. DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-302037
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of "mushroom" femtosecond laser-enabled keratoplasty (M-FLEK) with those of conventional penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) in eyes with keratoconus. The femtosecond laser-enabled "mushroom" pattern keratoplasty technique results in less postoperative astigmatism and higher endothelial cell counts compared with conventional PKP in patients with keratoconus. This was a nonrandomized retrospective, single private center clinical study. Between March 2010 and April 2012, 26 eyes underwent M-FLEK and 33 eyes underwent conventional PKP. Data on preoperative and postoperative manifest refraction, uncorrected visual acuity and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), endothelial cell counts, vector analysis, and complications were retrieved and analyzed. At 12 months of follow-up, the mean logMAR BCVA was 0.31 ± 0.55 in the M-FLEK group and 0.32 ± 0.21 in the PKP group (P = 0.91). The mean spherical equivalent was similar between the groups. The mean manifest cylinder was significantly lower in the M-FLEK group (-2.84 ± 1.08 diopters) than in the PKP group (-3.93 ± 2.26 diopters; P = 0.03). There was a smaller mean endothelial cell loss in the M-FLEK group compared with the PKP group (32.1% vs 38.7%, respectively, P = 0.17) 1 year postoperatively. The complication rates were similar for both groups. M-FLEK appears to be a safe procedure that results in less astigmatism and a trend toward higher endothelial cell counts compared with conventional PKP, with similar postoperative BCVA.Cornea 03/2014; · 1.75 Impact Factor
- The British journal of ophthalmology 12/2012; · 2.92 Impact Factor
- International ophthalmology clinics 01/2013; 53(4):23-32.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.