Visumax femtolasik versus Moria M2 microkeratome in mild to moderate myopia: efficacy, safety, predictability, aberrometric changes and flap thickness predictability

Magda A Torky, Yousif A Al Zafiri, Abeer M Khattab, Rania K Farag, Eman A Awad, Magda A Torky, Yousif A Al Zafiri, Abeer M Khattab, Rania K Farag, Eman A Awad

Abstract

Introduction: This is an interventional prospective clinical study which was conducted to evaluate the efficacy, safety, predictability, ocular aberrations, and flap thickness predictability of Visumax femtosecond laser (FSL) compared to Moria M2 microkeratome (MK) in mild to moderate myopia.

Methods: This study included 60 eyes who were divided into two groups. Thirty eyes in group (I) in which the flap was created with Visumax FSL, while in group II (30 eyes) the Moria M2 MK was used. Keratometric, refractive, and aberrometric measurements were compared preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. The intraoperative subtraction pachymetry (the SP 100 Handy pachymeter (Tomey, Nagoya, Japan) was used for preoperative pachymetry and flap thickness measurement.

Results: No significant difference was found between the two groups in regards to postoperative manifest sphere, spherical equivalent, astigmatism, safety indices nor ocular aberrations. Twenty six eyes (86.6%) in group I and 23 eyes in group II (76.6%) were within ±0.5D of the intended correction and 23 eyes (76.6%) in group I and 15 eyes in group II (50%) were within ±0.25D of the intended correction. In group I, the mean postoperative actual flap thickness was 100.12 ± 16.1 μm (81 to 122 μm), while in group II, it was 104.6 ± 20.1 μm (62 to 155 μm). The difference was statistically significant (p = 0.001).

Conclusions: Both Visumax and Moria M2 MK are safe and effective in treating myopia with no statistically significant difference in induction of ocular aberrations but with potential advantage for Visumax regarding predictability. More accurate flap thickness is achieved with Visumax femtolasik.

Trial registration: This study was retrospectively registered on 19/6/2017. Trial registration number NCT03193411 , clinicalTrials.gov .

Keywords: Moria 2; Visumax; myopia.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This is a clinical study, and the research was approved by the local Institutional Review Board of the Dar Alshifa Hospital, Kuwait and conducted according to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent to participate was obtained for each subject prior to the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable for this study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Comparison of postoperative UDVA in Visumax group (group I) and Moria M2 MK (group II)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Postoperative SE refraction in Visumax group (group I) and Moria M2 MK (group II)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Spherical equivalent attempted versus achieved in Visumax group (group I)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Spherical equivalent attempted versus achieved in Moria M2 MK (group II)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Changes in CDVA in Visumax group (group I) and Moria M2 MK (group II)

References

    1. Rosa AM, Neto Murta J, Quadrado MJ, Tavares C, Lobo C, Van Velze R, Castanheira-Dinis A. FSL versus mechanical MKs for flap creation in laser in situ keratomileusis and effect of postoperative measurement interval on estimated femtosecond flap thickness. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35:833–838. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.12.038.
    1. Kurtz RM, Horvath C, Liu HH, Krueger RR, Juhasz T. Lamellar refractive surgery with scanned infrastromal picosecond and FSL pulses in animal eyes. J Refract Surg. 1998;14:541–548.
    1. Du S, Lian J, Zhang L, Ye S, Dong S. Flap thickness variation with 3 types of MK heads. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(1):144–148. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.11.002.
    1. Durrie DS, Kezirian GM. FSL versus mechanical keratome flaps in wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis; prospective contralateral eye study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:120–126. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.09.046.
    1. Lim T, Yang S, Kirn MJ, Tchah H. Comparison of the IntraLase FSL and mechanical MK for laser in situ keratomileusis. Am J Ophthalmology. 2006;141:833–839. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2005.12.032.
    1. Patel SV, Maguire LJ, McLaren JW, Hodge DO, Bourne WM. FSL versus mechanical MK for LASIK; a randomized controlled study. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:1482–1490. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.10.057.
    1. Waring GO., 3rd Standard graphs for reporting refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 2000;16(4):459–466.
    1. Cosar CB, Gonen T, Moray M, Sener AB. Comparison of visual acuity, refractive results and complications of FSL with mechanical MK in LASIK. Int J Ophthalmol. 2013;6(3):350–355.
    1. Chou YS, Liang CM, Chen JT, Lu DW, Chou YC, Tai MC. Accuracy of LASIK flap thickness obtained using 2 types of Moria M2 single-use head MK measured postoperatively by optical coherence tomography. J Med Sci. 2013;33(4):191–197.
    1. Kanellopoulos AJ, Pe LH, Kleiman L. Moria M2 single use MK head in 100 consecutive LASIK procedures. J Refract Surg. 2005;21(5):476–479.
    1. Kim JY, Kim MJ, Kim TI, Choi HJ, Pak JH, Tchah H. A FSL creates a stronger flap than a mechanical MK. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(2):599–604. doi: 10.1167/iovs.05-0458.
    1. Medeiros FW, Stapleton WM, Hammel J, Krueger RR, Netto MV, Wilson SE. Wavefront analysis comparison of LASIK outcomes with the FSL and mechanical MKs. J Refract Surg. 2007;23(9):880–887.
    1. Reinstein DZ1, Carp GI, Archer TJ, Gobbe M. Transitioning from mechanical microkeratome to femtosecond laser flap creation: visual outcomes of an experienced and a novice LASIK surgeon. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38(10):1788–1795. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.05.038.
    1. Chen S, Feng Y, Stojanovic A, Jankov MR, 2nd, Wang Q. IntraLase FSL vs mechanical MKs in LASIK for myopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Refract Surg. 2012;28(1):15–24. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20111228-02.
    1. Kezirian GM, Stonecipher KG. Comparison of the IntraLase FSL and mechanical keratomes for laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30(4):804–811. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2003.10.026.
    1. Yao P, Xu Y, Zhou X. Comparison of the predictability, uniformity and stability of a laser in situ keratomileusis corneal flap created with a Visumax FSL or a Moria MK. J Int Med Res. 2011;39(3):748–758. doi: 10.1177/147323001103900306.
    1. Huhtala A, Pietilä J, Mäkinen P, Suominen S, Seppänen M, Uusitalo H. Corneal flap thickness with the Moria M2 single-use head 90 MK. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007;85(4):401–406. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2006.00838.x.
    1. Blum M, Kunert K, Gille A, Sekundo W. LASIK for myopia using the Zeiss Visumax FSL and MEL 80 excimer laser. J Refract Surg. 2009;25(4):350–356. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20090401-01.
    1. Issa A, AL Hassany U. FSL flap parameters and visual outcomes in laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37:665–674. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.10.049.
    1. Montés-Micó RI, Rodríguez-Galietero A, Alió JL. FSL versus mechanical Keratome LASIK for myopia. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:62–68. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.07.019.
    1. Li H, Sun T, Wang M, Zhao J. Safety and effectiveness of thin flap LASIK using a FSL and MK in the correction of high myopia in Chinese patients. J Refract Surg. 2010;26(2):99–106. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20100121-05.
    1. Calvo R, McLaren JW, Hodge DO, Bourne WM, Patel SV. Corneal aberrations and visual acuity after laser in situ keratomileusis: FSL versus mechanical MK. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149(5):785–793. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2009.12.023.
    1. Rosman M, Hall RC, Frazco CC. Comparison of efficacy and safety of laser in situ keratomileusis using 2 FSL platforms in contralateral eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39:1066–1073. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.02.038.
    1. Zhang ZH, Jin HY, Suo Y, Patel SV, Montes-Mico R, Manche EE, Xu X. FSL versus mechanical MK laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia: Metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(12):2151–2159. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.05.043.
    1. Porter J, MacRae S, Yoon G, Roberts C, Cox IG, Williams DR. Separate effects of the MK incision and laser ablation on the eye's wave aberration. Am 1 Ophthalmol. 2003;136:327–337. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9394(03)00222-8.
    1. Yvon C, Archer TJ, Gobbe M, Reinstein DZ. Comparison of higher-order aberration induction between manual microkeratome and femtosecond laser flap creation. Yvon C, archer TJ, Gobbe M, Reinstein DZ. J Refract Surg. 2015;31(2):130–135. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20150122-09.
    1. Baily C, Brosnan G, O’Keefe M. FSL compared with a mechanical Keratome for LASIK in Myopes. J Emmetropia. 2012;3:73–81.
    1. Vaddavalli PK, Yoo SH. FSL in-situ keratomileusis flap configurations. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2011;22(4):245–250. doi: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e3283479ebd.
    1. Salomão MQ, Wilson SE. FSL in laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36(6):1024–1032. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.03.025.
    1. Kim J-H, Lee D, Rhee KI. Flap thickness reproducibility in laser in situ keratomileusis with a FSL: optical coherence tomography measurement. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:132–136. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.08.036.
    1. Aslanides IM, Tsiklis NS, Astyrakakis NI, Pallikaris IG, Jankov MR. LASIK flap characteristics using the Moria M2 MK with the 90-microm single use head. J Refract Surg. 2007;23(1):45–49.
    1. Hyunseok A, Jin KK, Chang KK, Gyu HH. Comparison of laser-in-situ keratomileusis flaps created by 3 FSLs and a MK. J Cataract Refr Surg. 2011;37:349–357. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.08.042.
    1. Reinstein DZ1, Archer TJ, Gobbe M, Johnson N. Accuracy and reproducibility of artemis central flap thickness and visual outcomes of LASIK with the Carl Zeiss Meditec VisuMax femtosecond laser and MEL 80 excimer laser platforms. J Refract Surg. 2010;26(2):107–119. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20100121-06.
    1. Ju WK, Lee JH, Chung TY, Chung ES. Reproducibility of LASIK flap thickness using the zeiss FSL measured postoperatively by optical coherence tomography. J Refract Surg. 2011;27(2):106–110. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20100428-04.
    1. Jacobs JM, Taravella MJ. Incidence of intraoperative flap complications in laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28:23–28.
    1. Karabela Y, Muftuoglu O, Gulkilik IG, Kocabora MS, Ozsutcu M. Intraoperative and early postoperative flap-related complications of laser in situ keratomileusis using two types of Moria MKs. Int Ophthalmol. 2014;34(5):1107–1114. doi: 10.1007/s10792-014-9919-7.
    1. Randleman JB, Lynn MJ, Banning CS, Stulting RD. Risk factors for epithelial defect formation during laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33:1738–1743. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.05.038.
    1. Moshirfar M, Gardiner JP, Schliesser JA, Espandar L, Feiz V, Mifflin MD, Chang JC. Laser in situ keratomileusis flap complications using mechanical MK versus FSL: retrospective comparison. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36(11):1925–1933. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.05.027.
    1. Mayer WJ, Grueterich M, Wolf AH, Lackerbauer CA, Eibl K, Kampik A, Kook D. Corneal cell response after flap creation using a mechanical MK or a 200 kHz FSL. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39(7):1088–1092. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.01.047.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa