Comparison of flap adhesion strength using the Amadeus microkeratome and the IntraLase iFS femtosecond laser in rabbits.

PURPOSE To compare adhesion strength of flaps created with a mechanical microkeratome and the IntraLase femtosecond laser as well as to analyze the effect of different side-cut configurations. METHODS A flap was created in four groups of New Zealand white rabbits--microkeratome group (Amadeus II microkeratome, Ziemer Group AG [5 eyes; 9-mm suction ring and 140-microm head]), and three IntraLase groups (IntraLase iFS 150 kHz femtosecond laser, AMO Inc [9-mm diameter and 120-microm flap each]): normal energy side-cut (4 eyes; side-cut angle 70 degrees, side-cut energy 0.8 microJ); high energy side-cut (4 eyes; side-cut angle 70 degrees, side-cut energy 1.6 microJ); and inverted side-cut (4 eyes; side-cut angle 140 degrees, side-cut energy 0.8 microJ). Flap adhesion strength was measured 75 days after surgery using a tension meter to dehisce the flaps. RESULTS In the microkeratome group, mean force was 210+/-89 g (range: 151 to 360 g); 492+/-46 g (range: 439 to 540 g) in the normal energy side-cut group; 444+/-13 g (range: 426 to 455 g) in the high energy side-cut group; and 687+/-105 g (range: 552 to 797 g) in the inverted side-cut group. Differences between the microkeratome and all IntraLase groups were highly significant (P=.001), and differences between the inverted side-cut group and the standard 70 degrees side-cut groups were statistically significant (P=.01). CONCLUSIONS Flap adhesion is significantly stronger with the IntraLase femtosecond laser than with the Amadeus mechanical microkeratome, and an inverted side-cut increases flap adhesion significantly compared with a standard side-cut.

[1]  Emilio Balestrazzi,et al.  Comparison of Corneal Aberration Changes After Laser In Situ Keratomileusis Performed With Mechanical Microkeratome and IntraLase Femtosecond Laser: 1-Year Follow-up , 2008, Cornea.

[2]  Hyun-jeung Choi,et al.  A femtosecond laser creates a stronger flap than a mechanical microkeratome. , 2006, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[3]  S. Schallhorn,et al.  Stability of the laser in situ keratomileusis corneal flap in rabbit eyes , 2006, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[4]  Zsolt Bor,et al.  Randomized prospective clinical study comparing induced aberrations with IntraLase and Hansatome flap creation in fellow eyes: Potential impact on wavefront‐guided laser in situ keratomileusis , 2005, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[5]  R. Krueger,et al.  Biomechanical effects of femtosecond and microkeratome-based flap creation: prospective contralateral examination of two patients. , 2007, Journal of refractive surgery.

[6]  M. Netto,et al.  Wavefront analysis comparison of LASIK outcomes with the femtosecond laser and mechanical microkeratomes. , 2007, Journal of refractive surgery.

[7]  Sanjay V. Patel,et al.  Femtosecond laser versus mechanical microkeratome for LASIK: a randomized controlled study. , 2007, Ophthalmology.

[8]  D. B. Tran,et al.  A 60 kHz IntraLase femtosecond laser creates a smoother LASIK stromal bed surface compared to a Zyoptix XP mechanical microkeratome in human donor eyes. , 2007, Journal of refractive surgery.

[9]  R. Krueger,et al.  First clinical results with the femtosecond neodynium-glass laser in refractive surgery. , 2003, Journal of refractive surgery.

[10]  E. Cohen,et al.  Accidental self-removal of a flap--a rare complication of laser in situ keratomileusis surgery. , 2001, American journal of ophthalmology.

[11]  W. J. Hadden,et al.  A Comparison of , 1971 .