Comparison of clinical outcomes between manual and femtosecond laser techniques for intrastromal corneal ring segment implantation

Purpose: The purpose was to compare the visual, refractive and aberrometric results of intrastromal corneal ring segments implantation with manual dissection and femtosecond laser–assisted surgery. Methods: This is a multicentre study, which included consecutive patients with paracentral keratoconus, in which the difference between the axes of the topographic flattest and the coma aberration was <60°, who had Ferrara-type intrastromal corneal ring segment implantation using manual dissection or femtosecond laser technique. LogMAR uncorrected (uncorrected distance visual acuity) and corrected (corrected distance visual acuity) distance visual acuity, refractive errors and the root mean square for corneal coma-like aberration were recorded before and at 6 months after surgery. Results: The study included 84 and 110 eyes in the manual group and in the femtosecond group, respectively. After surgery, there was a statistically significant improvement in uncorrected distance visual acuity and corrected distance visual acuity for both groups (p < 0.0001), and there were no statistically significant differences between groups (p > 0.3). For both groups, there was a reduction in spherical equivalent after intrastromal corneal ring segment implantation (p < 0.0001). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in the magnitude of spherical equivalent reduction (p = 0.34) The magnitude of the root mean square coma-like reduction was 0.93 ± 0.76 and 0.83 ± 0.80 μm in the manual and femtosecond group, respectively (p = 0.2). While in the femtosecond laser group no complications were reported, in the manual group, the intraoperative or postoperative complications rate was 13.09%. Conclusion: Although both surgical techniques provide comparable visual, refractive and aberrometric outcomes, it should be noted that the femtosecond laser is a safer surgical procedure, with no complications reported.

[1]  R. Ambrósio,et al.  Comparison of Complication Rates between Manual and Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Techniques for Intrastromal Corneal Ring Segments Implantation in Keratoconus , 2019, Current eye research.

[2]  R. Ambrósio,et al.  Predictability of Tunnel Depth for Intrastromal Corneal Ring Segments Implantation Between Manual and Femtosecond Laser Techniques. , 2018, Journal of refractive surgery.

[3]  J. Alfonso,et al.  Adjustment of Intrastromal Corneal Ring Segments After Unsuccessful Implantation in Keratoconic Eyes , 2017, Cornea.

[4]  J. Alfonso,et al.  Long-Term Follow-up of Intrastromal Corneal Ring Segments (210-Degree Arc Length) in Central Keratoconus With High Corneal Asphericity , 2017, Cornea.

[5]  M. Santhiago,et al.  Intracorneal Ring Segments Implantation for Corneal Ectasia. , 2016, Journal of refractive surgery.

[6]  J. Alfonso,et al.  Intrastromal Corneal Ring Segment Implantation in 409 Paracentral Keratoconic Eyes , 2016, Cornea.

[7]  Joann J. Kang,et al.  Recent advances in the treatment of corneal ectasia with intrastromal corneal ring segments , 2015, Current opinion in ophthalmology.

[8]  Kohji Nishida,et al.  Global Consensus on Keratoconus and Ectatic Diseases , 2015, Cornea.

[9]  J. Alfonso,et al.  Inferior intrastromal corneal ring segments in paracentral keratoconus with no coincident topographic and coma axis. , 2013, Journal of refractive surgery.

[10]  J. Alfonso,et al.  Intrastromal corneal ring segment implantation in 219 keratoconic eyes at different stages , 2011, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[11]  A. Kubaloğlu,et al.  Comparison of mechanical and femtosecond laser tunnel creation for intrastromal corneal ring segment implantation in keratoconus: Prospective randomized clinical trial , 2010, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[12]  J. Alió,et al.  Refractive and aberrometric outcomes of intracorneal ring segments for keratoconus: mechanical versus femtosecond-assisted procedures. , 2009, Ophthalmology.

[13]  Hassan Hashemi,et al.  Intracorneal ring segment implantation for the management of keratoconus: Safety and efficacy , 2007, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[14]  J. Talamo,et al.  Intacs for Keratoconus and Post-LASIK Ectasia: Mechanical Versus Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Channel Creation , 2007, Cornea.

[15]  Y. Rabinowitz,et al.  INTACS inserts using the femtosecond laser compared to the mechanical spreader in the treatment of keratoconus. , 2006, Journal of refractive surgery.

[16]  A. Kanellopoulos,et al.  Modified intracorneal ring segment implantations (INTACS) for the management of moderate to advanced keratoconus: efficacy and complications. , 2006, Cornea.

[17]  A. Kanellopoulos,et al.  Modified Intracorneal Ring Segment Implantations (INTACS) for the Management of Moderate to Advanced Keratoconus: Efficacy and Complications , 2006 .

[18]  G. Grabner,et al.  One year results of european multicenter study of intrastromal corneal ring segments: Part 2: complications, visual symptoms, and patient satisfaction , 2001, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[19]  L. Thibos,et al.  Power vector analysis of the optical outcome of refractive surgery , 2001, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.