OCT导航的飞秒激光制作角膜瓣的优势分析

doi:10.6040/j.issn.1673-3770.1.2020.002

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的比较OCT导航的飞秒激光与其他三种飞秒激光制作角膜瓣的特点。方法近视及近视散光患者107例(200眼),分别行4种飞秒激光LASIK手术,其中A组:FEMTO LDV Z8飞秒激光,B组: Ziemer Crystalline飞秒激光,C组:Wavelight FS200飞秒激光,D组:Zeiss VisuMax飞秒激光,每组各50 眼。术后应用RTVue OCT分别测量角膜瓣厚度并分析。结果术后1周,A组角膜瓣厚度与预计值接近,组内变异范围小;B组角膜瓣厚度与预计值接近,但是变异范围大;C组和D组变异范围较小,但C组角膜瓣厚度偏薄,D组角膜瓣厚度与预计值接近。4种飞秒激光制作的角膜瓣形态规整、均一,中央厚度与周边厚度没有统计学差异(P>0.05)。4组间比较角膜瓣厚度值与预计值110 μm差值有明显差异,A组(3.43±2.81)μm和D组(3.13±2.89)μm明显好于B组(6.88±4.13)μm和C组(5.44±3.62)μm(F=2.397, P=0.018)。结论 OCT导航的飞秒激光与Zeiss VisuMax飞秒激光比Ziemer Crystalline和Wavelight FS200飞秒激光制作的角膜瓣更精确,可预测性更好。

关键词: 准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术, 飞秒激光, 角膜瓣厚度, 光学相干断层扫描

Abstract: Objective To compare the features of corneal flaps created by using an optical coherence tomography(OCT)-guided femtosecond laser and those created by three other femtosecond lasers. Methods Four types of femtosecond laser laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis procedures were performed on 107 patients(200 eyes)with myopia and myopic astigmatism. Patients were divided into four groups of 50: group A, FEMTO LDV Z8 femtosecond laser; group B, Ziemer Crystalline femtosecond laser; group C, Wavelight FS200 femtosecond laser; and group D, Zeiss VisuMax femtosecond laser. Corneal flap thickness was measured and analyzed by RTVue OCT. Results At 1 week postoperatively, the corneal flap thickness in group A was close to the expected value and the variation range was small. The corneal flap thickness in group B was close to the expected value, but the variation range was large. The corneal flap thickness in group C was thin, that of group D was close to the expected value, and the variation ranges of both groups were small. The corneal flaps created by the four femtosecond lasers were regular and uniform in shape, and there was no statistically significant difference between central and peripheral thicknesses(P>0.05). The differences between the corneal flap thickness value and the predicted value of 110 μm among the four groups were obviously different. The results of groups A(3.43±2.81)μm and D(3.13±2.89)μm were obviously better than those of groups B(6.88±4.13)μm and C(5.44±3.62)μm(F=2.397; P=0.018). Conclusion Compared with the Ziemer Crystalline and Wavelight FS200 femtosecond lasers, the OCT-guided femtosecond laser and the Zeiss VisuMax femtosecond laser featured higher accuracy and better predictability.

Key words: Femtosecond laser, Flap thickness, Laser in situ keratomileusis, Optical coherence tomography

中图分类号:

R772.2

张晶,陶冶,李福生,王燊,曲冬懿,李莹,周跃华. OCT导航的飞秒激光制作角膜瓣的优势分析[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2020, 34(2): 17-21.

ZHANG Jing, TAO Ye, LI Fusheng, WANG Shen, QU Dongyi, LI Ying, ZHOU Yuehua. Analysis of the advantages of flaps created with an optical coherence tomography-guided femtosecond laser[J]. Journal of Otolaryngology and Ophthalmology of Shandong University, 2020, 34(2): 17-21.

参考文献

[1] Parafita-Fernández A, Teus M. Femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis flap creation[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2018, 44(10): 1297. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.07.020.
[2] Parafita-Fernández A, García-Gonzalez M, Katsanos A, et al. Two femtosecond laser LASIK platforms: comparison of evolution of visual acuity, flap thickness, and stromal optical density[J]. Cornea, 2019, 38(1): 98-104. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000001784.
[3] Garcia-Gonzalez M, Bouza-Miguens C, Parafita-Fernandez A, et al. Comparison of visual outcomes and flap morphology using 2 femtosecond-laser platforms[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2018, 44(1): 78-84. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.10.041.
[4] Zheng Y, Zhou YH, Zhang J, et al. Comparison of laser in situ keratomileusis flaps created by 2 femtosecond lasers[J]. Cornea, 2015, 34(3): 328-333. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000000361.
[5] Zhang J, Zhou YH, Zhai CB, et al. Comparison of 2 femtosecond lasers for laser in situ keratomileusis flap creation[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2013, 39(6): 922-927. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.01.042.
[6] Zhou YH, Zhang J, Tian L, et al. Comparison of the Ziemer FEMTO LDV femtosecond laser and Moria M2 mechanical microkeratome[J]. J Refract Surg, 2012, 28(3): 189-194. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20120208-01.
[7] Zhang J, Zhou YH, Zheng Y, et al. Comparison of visual performance recovery after thin-flap LASIK with 4 femtosecond lasers[J]. Int J Ophthalmol, 2017, 10(10): 1566-1572. doi:10.18240/ijo.2017.10.14.
[8] Tomita M, Watabe M, Mita M, et al. Long-term observation and evaluation of femtosecond laser-assisted thin-flap laser in situ keratomileusis in eyes with thin corneas but normal topography[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2014, 40(2): 239-250. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.07.054.
[9] Izatt JA, Hee MR, Swanson EA, et al. Micrometer-scale resolution imaging of the anterior eye in vivo with optical coherence tomography[J]. Arch Ophthalmol, 1994, 112(12): 1584-1589. doi:10.1001/archopht.1994.01090240090031.
[10] Yu CQ, Manche EE. A comparison of LASIK flap thickness and morphology between the Intralase 60- and 150-kHz femtosecond lasers[J]. J Refract Surg, 2014, 30(12): 827-830. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20141113-04.
[11] Rocha KM, Krueger RR. Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography epithelial and flap thickness mapping in femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis[J]. Am J Ophthalmol, 2014, 158(2): 293-301.e1. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2014.04.012.
[12] Chan C, Saad A, Randleman JB, et al. Analysis of cases and accuracy of 3 risk scoring systems in predicting ectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2018, 44(8): 979-992. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.05.013.
[13] Flanagan GW, Binder PS. Role of flap thickness in laser in situ keratomileusis enhancement for refractive undercorrection[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2006, 32(7): 1129-1141. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.01.095.
[14] Zhang Y, Chen YG, Xia YJ. Comparison of corneal flap morphology using AS-OCT in LASIK with the WaveLight FS200 femtosecond laser versus a mechanical microkeratome[J]. J Refract Surg, 2013, 29(5): 320-324. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20130415-03.

相关文章 15

[1]	杨茹,张玉光,徐湘辉,吴雪莲,陶远,谭越. 超声乳化术对老年性白内障黄斑区视网膜结构影响的临床研究[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2022, 36(4): 97-102.
[2]	彭娇,钟定娟,陈蛟,左筠,王华. 光学区直径与暗瞳直径的关系对不同程度近视患者SMILE术后视觉质量的影响[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2022, 36(2): 100-107.
[3]	张敏，李艳. OCT及OCTA在阿尔茨海默病诊断中的研究进展[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2022, 36(2): 157-162.
[4]	陈涛,李耀宇,杨马君,闫洪欣,刘光溢,翟长斌. SMILE术中主动脱吸的合理运用和被动脱吸的原因分析及处理[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2021, 35(6): 20-24.
[5]	张颖,雷玉琳,马志兴,杨星花,张静,侯杰. SMILE联合快速角膜交联术后角膜光密度的早期临床观察[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2021, 35(6): 52-58.
[6]	张昕雨，雷春燕,张美霞. 运用OCT及OCTA观察硅油对视网膜脉络膜的影响[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2021, 35(5): 132-136.
[7]	王露萍黄映湘, 王艳玲. 眼缺血综合征研究进展[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2020, 34(4): 23-27.
[8]	傅强,王红星. 眼缺血综合征患者脉络膜厚度的分析[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2020, 34(4): 60-63.
[9]	冯雪,王海伟,李闻思,杨新同,孙存,赵媛,赵朋波,张建强. 基于SD-OCT分析高血压类型与视网膜血管管径的关系[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2020, 34(4): 64-68.
[10]	苏才培,杨亚波. 飞秒激光小切口角膜基质透镜取出术操作要点及并发症的预防和处理[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2020, 34(2): 13-16.
[11]	梁刚,马蓉,张丰菊. SMILE术中角膜帽下地塞米松平衡液冲洗与否的早期临床观察[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2020, 34(2): 22-31.
[12]	张韬,曹开伟,刘李娜,刘莛,白继. SMILE术中第二术眼不同保护措施泪膜稳定性的对比研究[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2020, 34(2): 32-35.
[13]	赵旸,傅艳燕,吴小影,尹叶薇,向爱群,卢颖,杜凯旋,李元君,胡涂,李杏莉,文丹. 中低度近视SMILE术后超早期视觉质量变化的研究[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2020, 34(2): 42-46.
[14]	姜洋,李莹,崔歌. 0.1%双氯芬酸钠滴眼液在SMILE术后疗效的观察[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2020, 34(2): 57-60.
[15]	陶冶,周跃华,李福生,王燊,尹鸿芝,祁思,杨海红,单天凤,王芳. FS-LASIK与SMILE术后角膜上皮重塑的比较[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2020, 34(2): 61-66.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed