Postoperative changes in intraocular pressure and corneal biomechanical metrics: Laser in situ keratomileusis versus laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy

PURPOSE: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) and corneal biomechanical metric changes after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis and laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK). SETTING: Private practice, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. METHODS: The IOP, corneal biomechanical markers, and Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) waveform parameters were prospectively measured preoperatively and after 6 months in ablation‐matched myopic LASIK eyes (mLASIK group) and LASEK eyes (mLASEK group). A retrospectively identified cohort of low myopia LASIK eyes (lmLASIK group) and fellow unoperated eyes (control) were tested at a single postoperative visit. Statistical analysis compared the percentage change in parameters between groups. RESULTS: The mean postoperative Goldmann tonometry and Goldmann‐correlated IOPs were statistically significant reduced in the mLASIK and mLASEK groups (P<.03). Corneal‐compensated IOP, but not Pascal dynamic contour tonometry, was significantly reduced in the mLASIK group. The percentage change in corneal hysteresis (CH) and the corneal resistance factor (CRF) was greater in the mLASIK and mLASEK groups than in the lmLASIK group. The greatest percentage change in ORA signal parameters was in the mLASIK group and the smallest change, in the mLASEK group. On multivariate linear regression, the residual stromal bed was predictive of the percentage change in CH and CRF (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Microkeratome flap creation combined with deeper stromal ablation had the greatest effect on the ORA applanation signal, indicating corneas that are more readily deformable. The smallest change in the signal was in the group without a stromal flap (LASEK). There was a complex interaction between ablation location and depth that affected corneal biomechanical properties.

[1]  B. Mobasher,et al.  Refractive change induced by the LASIK flap in a biomechanical finite element model. , 2006, Journal of refractive surgery.

[2]  S. Asrani,et al.  Clinical comparison of the Proview eye pressure monitor with the Goldmann applanation tonometer and the Tonopen. , 2004, Archives of ophthalmology.

[3]  W. Dupps,et al.  Effect of acute biomechanical changes on corneal curvature after photokeratectomy. , 2001, Journal of refractive surgery.

[4]  I. Cunliffe,et al.  Assessment of the biomechanical properties of the cornea with the ocular response analyzer in normal and keratoconic eyes. , 2007, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[5]  H. Grossniklaus,et al.  Biomechanical and wound healing characteristics of corneas after excimer laser keratorefractive surgery: is there a difference between advanced surface ablation and sub-Bowman's keratomileusis? , 2008, Journal of refractive surgery.

[6]  J. González-Méijome,et al.  Comparison of the ICare® rebound tonometer with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population , 2005, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[7]  C. Roberts,et al.  A viscoelastic biomechanical model of the cornea describing the effect of viscosity and elasticity on hysteresis. , 2008, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[8]  Teruyo Kida,et al.  Effects of aging on corneal biomechanical properties and their impact on 24-hour measurement of intraocular pressure. , 2008, American journal of ophthalmology.

[9]  G. Vrensen,et al.  The specific architecture of the anterior stroma accounts for maintenance of corneal curvature , 2001, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[10]  M. Smolek,et al.  Interlamellar adhesive strength in human eyebank corneas. , 1990, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[11]  C. Kaufmann,et al.  Intraocular pressure measurements using dynamic contour tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[12]  G. Papastergiou,et al.  Assessment of the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer in monitoring intraocular pressure in unoperated eyes and eyes after LASIK , 2004, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[13]  A. Serra,et al.  Tonometry After Laser in Situ Keratomileusis Treatment , 2001, Journal of glaucoma.

[14]  David Touboul,et al.  Biomechanical characteristics of the ectatic cornea , 2008, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[15]  Massimo Camellin Laser epithelial keratomileusis for myopia. , 2003, Journal of refractive surgery.

[16]  Jun Liu,et al.  Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: Quantitative analysis , 2005, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[17]  Ahmed Elsheikh,et al.  Corneal thickness- and age-related biomechanical properties of the cornea measured with the ocular response analyzer. , 2006, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[18]  Rex D. Hamilton,et al.  Differences in the corneal biomechanical effects of surface ablation compared with laser in situ keratomileusis using a microkeratome or femtosecond laser , 2008, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[19]  C. Roberts Biomechanics of the cornea and wavefront-guided laser refractive surgery. , 2002, Journal of refractive surgery.

[20]  R. D. Stulting,et al.  Change in intraocular pressure measurements after LASIK the effect of the refractive correction and the lamellar flap. , 2005, Ophthalmology.

[21]  Yan Li,et al.  A longitudinal study of LASIK flap and stromal thickness with high-speed optical coherence tomography. , 2007, Ophthalmology.

[22]  N. Congdon,et al.  Influence of Corneal Structure, Corneal Responsiveness, and Other Ocular Parameters on Tonometric Measurement of Intraocular Pressure , 2007, Journal of glaucoma.

[23]  H. Grossniklaus,et al.  Depth-dependent cohesive tensile strength in human donor corneas: implications for refractive surgery. , 2008, Journal of refractive surgery.

[24]  M. Grossherr,et al.  Changes in corneal hysteresis after clear corneal cataract surgery. , 2007, American journal of ophthalmology.

[25]  Sunil Shah,et al.  The use of the Reichert ocular response analyser to establish the relationship between ocular hysteresis, corneal resistance factor and central corneal thickness in normal eyes. , 2006, Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association.

[26]  D. Fan,et al.  Effect of Corneal Curvature and Corneal Thickness on the Assessment of Intraocular Pressure Using Noncontact Tonometry in Patients After Myopic LASIK Surgery , 2006, Cornea.

[27]  Mujtaba A. Qazi,et al.  Changes in corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure following LASIK using static, dynamic, and noncontact tonometry. , 2007, American journal of ophthalmology.

[28]  M. Doughty,et al.  Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. , 2000, Survey of ophthalmology.

[29]  J. Alió,et al.  Corneal biomechanical properties in normal, post‐laser in situ keratomileusis, and keratoconic eyes , 2007, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[30]  Luis Alonso,et al.  The relationship between central corneal thickness and Goldmann applanation tonometry , 2003, Clinical & experimental optometry.

[31]  David Touboul,et al.  Correlations between corneal hysteresis, intraocular pressure, and corneal central pachymetry , 2008, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[32]  Fan Lu,et al.  Central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis during corneal swelling induced by contact lens wear with eye closure. , 2007, American journal of ophthalmology.

[33]  C. Roberts The cornea is not a piece of plastic. , 2000, Journal of refractive surgery.

[34]  Caitriona Kirwan,et al.  Corneal hysteresis using the Reichert ocular response analyser: findings pre‐ and post‐LASIK and LASEK , 2008, Acta ophthalmologica.

[35]  William J Dupps,et al.  Hysteresis: new mechanospeak for the ophthalmologist. , 2007, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[36]  D. Luce Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer , 2005, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[37]  M. Tsilimbaris,et al.  Ocular rigidity in living human eyes. , 2005, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[38]  A. Lam,et al.  Comparison of IOP Measurements Between ORA and GAT in Normal Chinese , 2007, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[39]  Steven E. Wilson,et al.  Biomechanics and wound healing in the cornea. , 2006, Experimental eye research.

[40]  Aachal Kotecha,et al.  What biomechanical properties of the cornea are relevant for the clinician? , 2007, Survey of ophthalmology.

[41]  T. Seiler,et al.  Topography-guided surface ablation for forme fruste keratoconus. , 2006, Ophthalmology.

[42]  Sergio Barbero,et al.  Increase in corneal asphericity after standard laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia is not inherent to the Munnerlyn algorithm. , 2003, Journal of refractive surgery.

[43]  J. Beiser,et al.  Central corneal thickness in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS). , 2001, Ophthalmology.

[44]  Caitriona Kirwan,et al.  Corneal hysteresis and intraocular pressure measurement in children using the reichert ocular response analyzer. , 2006, American journal of ophthalmology.

[45]  A. Wirthlin,et al.  Dynamic Contour Tonometry for Post-LASIK Intraocular Pressure Measurements , 2004, Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde.

[46]  N. Ehlers,et al.  Corneal thickness: measurement and implications. , 2004, Experimental eye research.

[47]  T. Ushiki,et al.  The three-dimensional organization of collagen fibrils in the human cornea and sclera. , 1991, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[48]  Damien Gatinel,et al.  Corneal hysteresis, resistance factor, topography, and pachymetry after corneal lamellar flap. , 2007, Journal of refractive surgery.

[49]  I. Cunliffe,et al.  Diurnal variation of ocular hysteresis in normal subjects: relevance in clinical context , 2006, Clinical & experimental ophthalmology.