GET THE APP

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
Open Access

ISSN: 2155-9570

+44 1223 790975

Abstract

Long-Term Outcomes of Post-Penetrating Keratoplasty Astigmatic Keratotomy Performed Using 30 kHz Femtosecond Laser Flap Mode Software vs 150 kHz Femtosecond Laser Enabled Astigmatic Keratotomy Software

Priyanka Chhadva, Florence Cabot, Victor Hernandez, Mukesh Taneja, Yu-Cherng Chang, Vasilios Diakonis and Sonia H. Yoo

Purpose: To assess the long-term outcomes of astigmatic keratotomy (AK) performed with two different techniques in patients with post-penetrating keratoplasty (post-PK) residual astigmatism.
Methods: This retrospective comparative case series was performed at Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. Patients who underwent post-PK AK performed using either 30 kHz femtosecond laser flap mode software (IntraLase/AMO, Irvine, CA)-Group 1-or using 150 kHz femtosecond laser enabled AK software (IntraLase/AMO, Irvine, CA)-Group 2-to create two anterior arcuate corneal incisions were included in this study. Preoperative and long-term postoperative follow-up data, including uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and spherical equivalence (SE) were analyzed.
Results: In group 1 (n=5), the difference in pre- and post-operative UDVA (0.97 ± 0.29 LogMAR to 0.68 ± 0.40 LogMAR, p=0.13), CDVA (0.28 ± 0.27 LogMAR to 0.47 ± 0.48 LogMAR, p=1), SE (-2.0 ± 3.0 diopters (D) to -1.8 ± 1.8 D, p=0.88) were not statistically significant, although UDVA and SE showed clinical improvement. In group 2 (n=6), the difference in pre- and post-operative UDVA (1.20 ± 0.14 LogMAR to 0.82 ± 0.62 LogMAR, p=0.19), CDVA (0.58 ± 0.32 LogMAR to 0.34 ± 0.31 LogMAR, p=0.25), SE (-2.3 ± 4.7 D to -2.9 ± 4.4 D, p=0.25) were not statistically significant. There was no statistical difference regarding postoperative UDVA (p=0.85), CDVA (p=0.93), SE (p=0.51) and surgically induced astigmatism (p=0.13) between the 2 groups.
Conclusion: AK performed with both techniques is a safe procedure to correct post-PK residual astigmatism. Both techniques yielded comparable results.

Top