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 SoftwarePriyanka Chhadva1, Florence Cabot1,2,3, Victor Hernandez3, Mukesh Taneja3,4, Yu-Cherng Chang3,5, Vasilios Diakonis1,2 and Sonia H. Yoo1,2,3*
- *Corresponding Author:
- Sonia H. Yoo
Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, 900 NW 17th Street, Miami, FL 33136, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date: June 14, 2016; Accepted date: September 25, 2016; Published date: September 30, 2016
Citation: Chhadva P, Cabot F, Hernandez V, Taneja M, Chang Y, et al. (2016) 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. J Clin Exp Ophthalmol 7:603. doi: 10.4172/2155-9570.1000603
Copyright: © 2016 Chhadva P, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
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.