Femtosecond Laser-Assisted LASIK Flap …...Femtosecond laser-created flaps are often more dif-ficult to lift compared to microkeratome-created flaps,9 and the risk of a tear is even

52 Copyright © SLACK Incorporated

R E V I E W

ASIK is the most common refractive procedure to correct refractive errors.1 Currently, there are two methods used for LASIK flap creation: mechanical

microkeratomes and femtosecond lasers.2-4 Compared with microkeratomes, femtosecond lasers provide more predict-able flap dimensions and improved quality of the optical sur-faces.1,5-7

There are many commercially available femtosecond lasers for LASIK flap creation: IntraLase (AMO, Irvine, CA); Victus (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY); Femto LDV (Ziemer Oph-talmic System Group, Port, Switzerland); VisuMax (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany); and WaveLight FS200 (Alcon Labo-ratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX).5,8-10 Despite the improved safety in flap creation, complications occasionally occur either intra-operatively or postoperatively. This article reviews the intra-operative and postoperative femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK flap complications and their management.

INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONSThe complications related to femtosecond laser-assisted

LASIK flap creation are summarized in Table 1.

Loss of suctionInadequate initial suction, flat corneas with mean cur-

vatures less than 42.00 diopters, smaller palpebral fissures, deep-set eyes, patient movement, eye rotation, and head tilt can contribute to loss of suction and an incomplete flap.1,5

The first sign of suction loss is often the appearance of a

LABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To discuss intraoperative and postoperative femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK flap complications and their management.

METHODS: Review of published literature.

RESULTS: Flap creation is a critical step in LASIK. The femtosecond laser has improved the overall predictabil-ity and safety of the lamellar incision, but complications can still occur during or after flap creation. Although many complications (eg, epithelial ingrowth and flap striae) were reduced with the femtosecond laser ap-plication, other specific complications have emerged, such as vertical gas breakthrough, opaque bubble layer, and transient light-sensitivity syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS: The application of femtosecond laser technology to LASIK flap creation has increased greatly since its introduction. These lasers have improved the safety and predictability of the lamellar incision step. The majority of the femtosecond laser-assisted flap complications can be well managed without significant effects on refractive outcomes.

[J Refract Surg. 2016;32(1):52-59.]

From the University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil (AMS, AAMT, GKM, RG, MVN, SJB); and Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (GKM, SEW).

Submitted: September 23, 2015; Accepted: November 1, 2015

Dr. Wilson has been a trainer for VISX. The remaining authors have no finan-cial or proprietary interest in the materials presented herein.

Drs. Santos and Torricelli contributed equally to this work and should be considered as equal first authors.

Correspondence: Andre A. M. Torricelli, MD, PhD, Av. Dr. Enéas de Carvalho Aguiar, 155, Cerqueira César, São Paulo/SP 05403-000, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected]

doi:10.3928/1081597X-20151119-01

Femtosecond Laser-Assisted LASIK Flap ComplicationsAllisson Mario dos Santos, MD; Andre A. M. Torricelli, MD, PhD; Gustavo K. Marino, MD; Renato Garcia, MD; Marcelo V. Netto, MD, PhD; Samir J. Bechara, MD, PhD; Steven E. Wilson, MD

53Journal of Refractive Surgery • Vol. 32, No. 1, 2016

FS-LASIK Flap Complications/Santos et al

peripheral asymmetric meniscus. Once detected, it is important to discontinue the laser treatment immedi-ately. Typically, the femtosecond laser cut can be re-peated at the same depth and, importantly, the same applanation cone should be used unless a manufactur-ing defect is noted. The vertical limbal pocket is typi-cally created to absorb the cavitation bubbles and this portion of the procedure can be deactivated if it was already created during the first pass. If the loss of suc-tion occurs during the side cut, the surgeon must en-sure that the subsequent side cut is created within the lamellar cut used to fashion the flap. The laser manu-facturer recommends decreasing the subsequent side cut by 0.5 mm in diameter.

Shah and Melki1 reported that multiple raster passes do not result in an irregular stromal bed or in-tersecting flaps. Surface ablation can be considered over the incomplete flap if repeated suction attempts prove unsuccessful,11 but we recommend doing this at least 2 months later so that an excessive healing re-sponse resulting from the simultaneous lamellar cut and surface ablation does not lead to stromal haze. A published study found a 4.4% rate of suction loss with the VisuMax laser, whereas other studies found rates of 0.8% and 0.2% with the IntraLase laser.12

BLeedingConjunctival hemorrhages can occur during suc-

tion or when multiple suction applications are needed due to suction loss or decentration.5 When they occur, these conjunctival hemorrhages clear over 1 to 2 weeks and do not affect the outcome of the surgery. One study found subconjunctival hemorrhage in 68.9% of eyes that had LASIK with the IntraLase platform but no eyes that had LASIK with the VisuMax platform.12 This difference could be attributed to differences in the docking mechanisms between the two lasers. Thus, suction is applied to the conjunctiva/sclera with the IntraLase laser but is applied to the cornea with the VisuMax laser.

Corneal neovascularization associated with rosacea, atopy, prominent limbal vascularization or prior con-tact lens use, along with decentered or large diameter flaps, may contribute to bleeding at the edge of the flap.12 This bleeding is easily controlled with sponges during the ablation and tamponade is achieved when the flap is replaced.1 If the bleeding is not controlled and enters the ablated zone during excimer laser treat-ment, it can create irregular astigmatism. Also, blood must be irrigated from the interface during flap repo-sitioning or there will be a high risk of diffuse lamel-lar keratitis (DLK). Avoiding superior flap decentra-tion and the use of a smaller flap diameter can prevent

bleeding at the flap edge in patients with peripheral corneal neovascularization.

epitheLiaL defectsTrauma to the epithelium can occur with femtosecond

laser-assisted LASIK when the laser makes the pocket and shock waves traumatize the overlying epithelium or when surgeons have difficulty in inserting the dissect-ing spatula under the flap edge. It is important to iden-tify preoperatively risk factors for large epithelial defects such as surgery in elderly patients, patients having ante-rior basement membrane dystrophy, a history of recur-rent erosion syndrome, use of larger flap diameters, and application of excessive topical anesthetic. Studies have shown that epithelial defects are much less likely to oc-cur during femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK flap forma-tion compared to the mechanical microkeratome LASIK flap formation.13,14 The main advantage of the femtosec-ond laser is the absence of the microkeratome rotational movement, which can lead to tearing or shearing of the epithelium.1

TABLE 1Intraoperative and Postoperative

Complications Related to Femtosecond Laser-Assisted

LASIK Flap CreationIntraoperative

Loss of suction

Bleeding

Epithelial defects

Vertical gas breakthrougha

Anterior chamber gas bubblea

Opaque bubble layera

Flap tears

Interface debris

Postoperative

Dislocated flaps

Striae and folds

Dry eye

Epithelial ingrowth

Diffuse lamellar keratitis

Infectious keratitis

Transient light-sensitivity syndromea

Rainbow glarea

Corneal ectasia

Interface hazeaComplication specific to femtosecond laser.



Patients with a small epithelial defect can proceed with LASIK as planned and are treated with a bandage contact lens and antibiotics. Importantly, topical corti-costeroids should be given every 2 hours while awake for the first 24 to 48 hours as prophylaxis against the development of DLK.15-17 The epithelium produces large quantities of cytokines such as interleukin-1 al-pha that are released by epithelial injury and, in turn, stimulate keratocytes to produce chemokines that at-tract inflammatory cells.15

VerticaL gas BreakthroughA thin flap, previous radial keratotomy surgery, cor-

neal scars, and microscopic breaks in the Bowman’s membrane may contribute to buttonhole flaps with vertical gas breakthrough.18 Cavitation bubbles from the femtosecond laser can dissect upward toward the epithelium and may either stay below Bowman’s mem-brane or break through the epithelium (buttonhole). A true buttonholed flap should not be lifted because it can lead to scarring or epithelial ingrowth.19 When a full buttonhole occurs, the eye can typically be treated with photorefractive keratectomy and mitomycin C several months later so that the area of the buttonhole is removed completely.20 If the eye with a buttonhole has hyperopia, it may be necessary to use a combina-tion of phototherapeutic keratectomy and photorefrac-tive keratectomy for hyperopia to remove the button-hole while providing refractive correction.

anterior chamBer gas BuBBLes and opaque BuBBLe Layer

Cavitation gas bubbles are formed during femtosec-ond flap creation and can expand into a cleavage plane at the stromal interlamellar space, which connects to the surface via the side cut. Thus, the presence of an

opaque bubble layer is a well-known intraoperative finding on all femtosecond laser platforms (Figure 1).21 It is hypothesized that when the laser energy is too high (causing excessive bubbles) or too low (resulting in an inadequate pocket to vent the bubbles), microplasma bubbles can travel in errant directions and push apart collagen fibrils around them and expand into space be-tween the bubbles.11

Opaque bubble layer may lead to a tighter flap ad-hesion, which can result in flap tears if the flap dis-section is not performed carefully.1,21 In the majority of cases, cavitation bubbles and opaque bubble layer clear spontaneously and the authors prefer to wait 30 minutes prior to excimer laser ablation so that the fea-tures applied by custom ablation that are measured in a few microns are not confounded by these transient space-occupying bubbles.

Some femtosecond laser platforms produce a vent-ing canal incision at the hinge of the flap to facilitate the release of the cavitation bubbles.21,22 A smaller di-ameter flap should be selected by the surgeon when excessive scleral show is noted after application of the suction ring.11

Anterior chamber gas bubbles are occasionally noted during femtosecond laser flap formation and these bubbles can interfere with pupil tracking by the excimer laser.15 Gas bubbles in the anterior chamber appear to correlate with femtosecond laser dissections that are too close to the limbus. Most surgeons test the excimer laser tracking prior to lifting the LASIK flap and then wait for the bubbles to reabsorb if interfer-ence is noted.21

fLap tearsFemtosecond laser-created flaps are often more dif-

ficult to lift compared to microkeratome-created flaps,9 and the risk of a tear is even higher because the flaps tend to be thinner. Thus, unless adequate care is taken during the passage of an instrument to release the fem-tosecond laser flap from the underlying bed, the flap can inadvertently be torn. If the tear occurs at the hinge, then a free cap can be produced. If a torn flap compromises the pupillary axis, then it is better to reposition the flap and abort the procedure. Surface ablation photorefractive keratectomy/phototherapeutic keratectomy can be done at another time to complete the treatment and remove the resulting scar. Stromal ablation can be performed in some cases with a small peripheral flap tear.23

This complication should be exceedingly rare if the surgeon ensures that adequate suction is obtained, uses optimized energy settings, and uses careful tech-nique. In most cases, it is better to wait and perform surface ablation treatment several months later.1

Figure 1. Opaque bubble layer (arrow) noted immediately after femtosec-ond laser-assisted LASIK flap creation.



interface deBrisDebris in the interface is common after all LASIK

procedures and is generally attributable to meibomian gland secretions, eyelashes, fibers from sponges, or talc from gloves. Adequate irrigation is the most effective approach to remove debris in the flap interface.1 When debris is noted after surgery, usually it is inert and can simply be observed if there is no inflammatory reaction or visual symptoms associated with the debris. How-ever, debris overlying the pupil should be removed if visual symptoms or a loss of corrected distance visual acuity is noted. Debris is best removed by complete lifting of the flap with copious irrigation.

POSTOPERATIVE FLAP COMPLICATIONSdisLocated fLaps

The incidence of postoperative flap dislocation is low after femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK, but it can occur any time after surgery and most commonly pres-ents with acute pain and decreased vision after me-chanical trauma to the flap. In the first 24 hours follow-ing the procedure, it can be secondary to minor insults such as rubbing the eye or eyelid squeezing.24

The highest incidence of flap displacements was found after surgery for hyperopia and the lowest rates af-ter surgery for mixed astigmatism and myopia with fem-tosecond lasers.24 Other studies also showed a low inci-dence of flap displacements in LASIK flaps created with femtosecond lasers, which is most likely related to better flap stability associated with better angulation of the side cut and resulting increased flap adhesion strength.1,2,25

A dislocated flap should be repositioned immedi-ately. The underside of the flap and the stromal bed may need to be scraped to remove epithelial ingrowth. Any folds should be treated with flap elevation, hy-dration, and repeated massage with an iris spatula, and epithelial debridement may be needed to flatten recalcitrant flap folds. Use of contact lenses, placing a shield over the eyes while sleeping, and encouraging eyelid closure in the immediate postoperative period are some protective measures used to avoid this com-plication.

striae and foLdsStriae and folds are common postoperative flap

complications that can lead to symptoms such as ha-los, diplopia, glare, and starbursts. If they involve the visual axis, folds can induce irregular astigmatism and decrease the corrected distance visual acuity (Figure A, available in the online version of this article). Femto-second laser flaps have stronger adhesion than micro-keratome flaps, which may lead to a lower incidence of striae or folds. Proposed etiologies include trauma, dry-

ness of the flap leading to shrinkage, misalignment, flap desiccation and contraction, and changes in the corneal contour in corrections for both myopia and hyperopia (the flap and bed do not retain the same contour after application of the excimer laser treatment).2,7

Management can range from light stroking with a moist surgical sponge to lift the flap, to hydrating and stretching the flap radially, followed by repositioning, and swelling the flap with hypotonic solutions. Su-turing the flap can also be considered if the striae do not resolve with less invasive treatment.1,9 In cases of flap striae that are resistant to multiple treatments, sur-face ablation26 and phototherapeutic keratectomy with masking smoothing can be considered as helpful alter-natives.

dry eye and Lasik-induced neurotrophic epitheLiopathy

Dry eye or LASIK-induced neurotrophic epitheli-opathy is the most common complication after LASIK (Figure B, available in the online version of this article). Proposed mechanisms to explain its etiology include destruction of the corneal nerve endings, decreased blinking rate, decreased normal and reflex stimulation of tear production, decreased tear film stability and distribution, increased evaporation of the tears, and loss of limbal goblet cells.7,27,28 Furthermore, injury to the corneal sensory nerves after refractive surgery could produce aberrant impulse discharges that might evoke sensations of dryness.7 Reduction in symptoms with nerve regeneration into the flap suggests that neu-rotropic loss is likely the leading factor.27

Femtosecond lasers seem to induce less nerve dam-age due to thinner and more planar flaps with less damage to corneal nerves, as well as limbal and goblet architecture.28 Other studies failed to show a correla-tion between flap thickness or ablation depth and the incidence of dry eye.29

Lubrication with preservative-free artificial tears is all that is required in many patients until the corneal nerves regenerate at 6 to 8 months after surgery. In more severe cases, topical cyclosporine A should be considered to treat the underlying inflammatory dry eye condition because in most cases there is a com-bination of both inflammatory dry eye and LASIK-induced neurotrophic epitheliopathy.28,30 Temporary collagen plugs or longer-lasting silicone punctal plugs, along with the short-term use of corticosteroids, have been used to control dry eye symptoms.30,31

epitheLiaL ingrowthThe incidence of epithelium ingrowth is lower in

LASIK flaps created with femtosecond lasers compared



with those created with mechanical microkeratomes.2,9 Epithelial ingrowth typically presents as islands of cells in the lamellar stromal interface associated with a fibrotic demarcation line (Figure C, available in the online ver-sion of this article). When severe, this epithelium can mechanically block nutrient diffusion to the overlying flap and cause flap necrosis. The majority of the growth is seen within the first 2 months after LASIK.32

Some of the proposed mechanisms include epithe-lial cell implantation by a microkeratome blade or cap-ture of epithelial cells in the interface when the flap is repositioned. It has also been proposed to occur by back flow of fluid carrying epithelial cells beneath the flap and epithelial cell invasion under the flap through a fistula or buttonhole. It appears to be more common in patients with epithelial basement membrane dystro-phy.33,34 The incidences of DLK, epithelial defects, and thinner flaps were correlated with a higher incidence of epithelial ingrowth.35

Epithelial ingrowth is categorized in Table 2. Usu-ally, treatment of epithelial ingrowth involves lifting the flap and debriding epithelial cells from the stromal bed and the posterior aspect of the flap with a scal-pel blade. Some have proposed the use of ethanol or phototherapeutic keratectomy,36,37 but those measures are rarely needed. Copious irrigation of the interface, pushing any tongues of epithelium back from the flap edge, and use of a bandage contact lens for the first 24 hours after removal of epithelial ingrowth are help-ful in preventing recurrence. Suturing the flap or the use of fibrin glue to seal the interface can be consid-ered in recurrent cases, but are only rarely necessary. Ayala et al.38 suggested Nd:YAG laser as a treatment

option for epithelial ingrowth, but we do not recom-mend this procedure due to the difficulty of remov-ing all epithelial cells and the risk of progression and further vision loss if the treatment fails. A steeper side cut angle when creating the femtosecond flap can also help decrease the incidence of epithelial ingrowth.36

diffuse LameLLar keratitisDLK is a rare, nonspecific sterile inflammatory re-

sponse typically seen within the first week after LASIK that occurs in the interface of the flap and underlying stroma (Figure D, available in the online version of this article). Patients can be asymptomatic or present with decreased vision and pain. The design of the 60-, 150-, or 200-kHz femtosecond laser models allowed for much lower energy delivery to cut the flap and, there-fore, a substantial reduction in keratocyte necrosis to the point that the overall inflammatory response is not significantly different from that noted with mechanical microkeratomes.2,39 Two factors commonly associated with DLK are flap epithelial defects and blood retained in the interface, and increased frequency of topical corticosteroids is needed to prevent DLK in the first 48 hours after surgery when either of these occur after LASIK. Bacterial endotoxin or exotoxin from steriliz-ers, meibomian secretions, and infectious keratitis can also cause DLK.13,32

Linebarger et al.40 classified DLK according to Table 3. Central toxic keratopathy mimics stage 4, but it oc-curs early in the postoperative period and is nonin-flammatory.41 It is important to exclude infection and it is wise to do so by culture if the condition is suffi-ciently severe that the flap should be lifted.

TABLE 2Epithelial Ingrowth Classification

Grade Definition

Grade I Thin ingrowth, 1 to 2 cells thick, limited to within 2 mm of flap edge, no associated flap changes, nonprogressive. No treatment required.

Grade II Thicker ingrowth, discrete cells evident within nest, at least 2 mm from flap edge. Requires nonurgent treatment within 2 to 3 weeks.

Grade III Pronounced ingrowth, several cells thick, greater than 2 mm from flap edge, ingrowth areas appear opaque, obvious on slit lamp, white geographic areas of necrotic epithelial cells without a demarcation line. Urgent treatment required.

TABLE 3Diffuse Lamellar Keratitis Classification

Stage Definition

Stage 1 White granular cells in the periphery with sparing of the visual axis. Usually on day 1.

Stage 2 White granular cells in the visual axis. Typically between days 1 and 3.

Stage 3 Clumping of granular cells with haze and reduced vision.

Stage 4 Stromal necrosis and melt, often leading to secondary hyperopia and irregular astigmatism.



DLK can occur even years after LASIK when there is trauma to the corneal epithelium. DLK is acutely responsive to aggressive topical corticosteroid use as frequently as every hour in the early stages for stage 1 and 2 disease. Higher potency steroids, such as dif-luprednate,42 and oral prednisone 60 mg per day can be considered for more severe stage 3 and 4 cases. For stage 3 and 4 DLK, lifting the flap and profuse irriga-tion, along with frequent potent corticosteroids, are crucial to arrest the progression of the inflammatory response to stromal necrosis.1,32

microBiaL keratitisMicrobial keratitis after LASIK is rare, but it is one

of the most dreaded postoperative complications and is not specific to the femtosecond laser. Erythema (red-ness), decreased vision, photophobia, and pain can occur acutely or gradually, and begin within days or weeks of surgery. Bacterial keratitis tends to present earlier, within 3 to 5 days, whereas atypical mycobac-teria or fungus presents a few weeks later. It is treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, flap lift and irriga-tion, culture, and possible flap amputation for recal-citrant cases.41

One prophylactic measure that can be taken is to use broader spectrum antibiotics in the early post-operative period following LASIK. If the surgeon ex-periences multiple cases, then a switch to a broader spectrum antibiotic should be considered, in addition to investigation into a possible breakdown in steriliza-tion methods or a new tool, such as marker pens, that can be contaminated.

pressure-induced stromaL keratitisPressure-induced stromal keratitis is caused by

acute corticosteroid response and resolves only with cessation of corticosteroid use and intraocular pressure lowering. It is often diagnosed incorrectly as DLK, with failure to recognize or measure the increased intraocu-lar pressure, which is often elevated from prolonged corticosteroid use. Because fluid can accumulate in the interface, it may cause a false low intraocular pressure, which can delay the diagnosis and treatment and re-sult in severe optic nerve damage.41,43,44

transient Light-sensitiVity syndrome Transient light-sensitivity syndrome is a rare and

unique side effect of femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK that was primarily associated with the 6- and 15-kHz IntraLase models, but has been noticed rarely with 30- and 60-kHz or even later models.8,9 It has been described as an intense light sensitivity with normal visual acuity and unremarkable slit-lamp examination. It is observed

within 2 to 6 weeks after femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK, although it can rarely occur several months after surgery. Although the etiology is unknown, it is most likely that the expelled gases traumatize the ciliary body and trigger localized inflammation.4,9

Symptoms usually regress with intensive topical corticosteroids every hour while awake for 48 hours followed by a taper over 2 weeks. Oral steroids are use-ful in recalcitrant cases.1,4

rainBow gLareRainbow glare is another side effect that is unique

to the femtosecond laser, and appears to be much more common with specific brands of femtosecond lasers. This phenomenon is believed to be secondary to dif-fractive light scattering45 and we believe it results from irregularities in the lamellar interface produced by the laser, especially when there is slight misalignment be-tween the flap and bed so that these irregularities are not masked but are transmitted to the corneal surface. Symptoms occur within 3 months and patients de-scribe seeing 4 to 12 bands of color.45

It is difficult to treat rainbow glare and other visual dysphotopsias. The symptoms tend to improve after some time and treating the ocular surface can also help. If residual refractive error is present, one can do a wavefront measurement and treat the residual cor-rection. In some cases, masking smoothing photothera-peutic keratectomy performed on the bed and poste-rior surface of the flap can eliminate the condition.46

postoperatiVe corneaL ectasiaIatrogenic corneal ectasia is a rare complication of

LASIK that usually occurs in eyes with predisposing factors such as forme fruste keratoconus. It is hypothe-sized that thinner and more predictable flaps obtained using the femtosecond laser lead to better biomechani-cal stability of the cornea and a lower risk of ectasia.1,9

It is important to carefully screen patients with a detailed history and examination, including corneal topography, to ascertain whether they present risk fac-tors or characteristics suggestive of keratoconus or pel-lucid marginal degeneration. In addition, maintaining the posterior residual stromal bed thickness greater than 300 µm can also decrease the incidence of cor-neal ectasia.47

A new metric to evaluate ectasia risk factor after LASIK was recently introduced.48 Percentage of tissue altered (PTA) determines the integrated relationship between central corneal thickness (CCT), flap thickness (FT), ablation depth (AD), and the residual stromal bed. It is calculated by the formula PTA = (FT + AD)/CCT and recent studies have shown that a PTA of 40% or



more is associated with increased ectasia risk, even in eyes with normal preoperative corneal topography.48,49

interface hazeThe incidence of haze is significantly less after

LASIK compared to surface ablation. This is due to maintenance of the central corneal epithelial basement membrane and a consequential decrease in myofibro-blast generation, which in turn decreases the incidence of fibrosis and haze.41,50,51 Any damage to the epithelial basement membrane, such as with a buttonhole flap, is usually associated with the development of localized haze. The mainstay of treatment for these eyes remains corticosteroids.1

CONCLUSIONFemtosecond laser-assisted LASIK has made flap

creation more predictable compared to microkeratome-assisted flap creation. Although there are fewer com-plications as a consequence, they can still occur and it is important to be able to identify and manage them as soon as possible. Most of the specific femtosecond la-ser-assisted LASIK flap complications can be managed without significant effects on refractive outcomes.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSStudy concept and design (AMS, AAMT, GKM, RG, MVN, SJB,

SEW); data collection (AMS, AAMT); analysis and interpretation

of data (AMS, AAMT); writing the manuscript (AMS, AAMT); criti-

cal revision of the manuscript (AMS, AAMT, GKM, RG, MVN, SJB,

SEW); statistical expertise (AMS, AAMT, GKM); supervision (RG,

MVN, SJB, SEW)

REFERENCES 1. Shah DN, Melki S. Complications of femtosecond-assisted laser

in-situ keratomileusis flaps. Semin Ophthalmol. 2014;29:363-375.

2. Santhiago MR, Kara-Junior N, Waring GO. Microkeratome ver-sus femtosecond flaps: accuracy and complications. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2014;25:270-274.

3. Chen S, Feng Y, Stojanovic A, Jankov MR 2nd, Weng Q. In-traLase femtosecond laser vs mechanical microkeratomes in LASIK for myopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Refract Surg. 2012;28:15-24.

4. Stonecipher K, Ignacio TS, Stonecipher M. Advances in refrac-tive surgery: microkeratome and femtosecond laser flap cre-ation in relation to safety, efficacy, predictability, and biome-chanical stability. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006;17:368-372.

5. Farjo AA, Sugar A, Schallhorn SC, et al. Femtosecond lasers for LASIK flap creation: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:e5-e20.

6. Sarayba MA, Ignacio TS, Tran DB, Binder PS. A 60 kHz Intra-Lase femtosecond laser creates a smoother LASIK stromal bed surface compared to a Zyoptix XP mechanical microkeratome in human donor eyes. J Refract Surg. 2007;23:331-337.

7. Xie W, Zhang D, Chen J, Liu J, Yu Y, Hu L. Tear menisci after laser

in situ keratomileusis with mechanical microkeratome and femto-second laser. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:5806-5812.

8. Santhiago MR, Wilson SE. Cellular effects after laser in situ ker-atomileusis flap formation with femtosecond lasers: a review. Cornea. 2012;31:198-205.

9. Salomão MQ, Wilson SE. Femtosecond laser in laser in situ ker-atomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36:1024-1032.

10. Lubatschowski H. Overview of commercially available femtosec-ond lasers in refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 2008;24:S102-S107.

11. Faktorovich EG. Femtodynamics: optimizing femtosecond laser settings and procedure techniques to optimize outcomes. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2008;48:41-50.

12. Ang M, Mehta JS, Rosman M, et al. Visual outcomes compari-son of 2 femtosecond laser platforms for laser in situ keratomi-leusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39:1647-1652.

13. Moshirfar M, Gardiner JP, Schliesser JA, et al. Laser in situ keratomileusis flap complications using mechanical micro-keratome versus femtosecond laser: retrospective comparison. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36:1925-1933.

14. Kezirian GM, Stonecipher KG. Comparison of the IntraLase femtosecond laser and mechanical keratomes for laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30:804-811.

15. Hong JW, Liu JJ, Lee JS, et al. Proinflammatory chemokine in-duction in keratocytes and inflammatory cell infiltration into the cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:2795-2803.

16. de Paula FH, Khairallah CG, Niziol LM, Musch DC, Shtein RM. Diffuse lamellar keratitis after laser in situ keratomileusis with femtosecond laser flap creation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38:1014-1019.

17. Gritz DC. LASIK interface keratitis: epidemiology, diagnosis and care. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2011;22:251-255.

18. Lim DH, Keum JE, Ju WK, Lee JH, Chung TY, Chung ES. Pro-spective contralateral eye study to compare 80- and 120-µm flap LASIK using the VisuMax femtosecond laser. J Refract Surg. 2013;29:462-468.

19. Harissi-Dagher M, Todani A, Melki SA. Laser in situ keratomi-leusis buttonhole: classification and management algorithm. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:1892-1899.

20. Kapadia MS, Wilson SE. Transepithelial photorefractive kera-tectomy for treatment of thin flaps or caps after complicated la-ser in situ keratomileusis. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126:827-829.

21. Rush SW, Cofoid P, Rush RB. Incidence and outcomes of anterior chamber gas bubble during femtosecond flap cre-ation for laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis. J Ophthalmol. 2015;2015:542127.

22. Kanellopoulos AJ, Asimellis G. Digital analysis of flap param-eter accuracy and objective assessment of opaque bubble layer in femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK: a novel technique. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:343-351.

23. Choi CJ, Melki SA. Loose anchoring suture to secure a free flap after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38:1127-1129.

24. Clare G, Moore TC, Grills C, Leccisotti A, Moore JE, Schall-horn S. Early flap displacement after LASIK. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:1760-1765.

25. Sutton G, Hodge C. Accuracy and precision of LASIK flap thick-ness using the IntraLase femtosecond laser in 1000 consecutive cases. J Refract Surg. 2008;24:802-806.

26. Kuo IC, Jabbur NS, O’Brien TP. Photorefractive keratectomy for refractory laser in situ keratomileusis flap striae. J Cataract Re-fract Surg. 2008;34:330-333.



27. Ambrósio R Jr, Tervo T, Wilson SE. LASIK-associated dry eye and neurotrophic epitheliopathy: pathophysiology and strate-gies for prevention and treatment. J Refract Surg. 2008;24:396-407.

28. Salomão MQ, Ambrósio R Jr, Wilson SE. Dry eye associated with laser in situ keratomileusis: mechanical microkeratome versus femtosecond laser. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35:1756-1760.

29. Golas L, Manche EE. Dry eye after laser in situ keratomileusis with femtosecond laser and mechanical keratome. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37:1476-1480.

30. Torricelli AA, Santhiago MR, Wilson SE. Topical cyclosporine a treatment in corneal refractive surgery and patients with dry eye. J Refract Surg. 2014;30:558-564.

31. Raoof D, Pineda R. Dry eye after laser in-situ keratomileusis. Semin Ophthalmol. 2014;29:358-362.

32. Melki SA, Azar DT. LASIK complications: etiology, manage-ment, and prevention. Surv Ophthalmol. 2001;46:95-116.

33. Rezende RA, Uchoa UC, Cohen EJ, Laibson PR, Rapauno CJ. Complications associated with anterior basement membrane dystrophy after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30:2328-2331.

34. Dastgheib KA, Clinch TE, Manche EE, Hersh P, Ramsey J. Sloughing of corneal epithelium and wound healing compli-cations associated with laser in situ keratomileusis in patients with epithelial basement membrane dystrophy. Am J Ophthal-mol. 2000;130:297-303.

35. Wang MY, Maloney RK. Epithelial ingrowth after laser in situ keratomileusis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:746-751.

36. Rapuano CJ. Management of epithelial ingrowth after laser in situ keratomileusis on a tertiary care cornea service. Cornea. 2010;29:307-313.

37. Lahners WJ, Hardten DR, Lindstrom RL. Alcohol and mechani-cal scraping for epithelial ingrowth following laser in situ ker-atomileusis. J Refract Surg. 2005;21:148-151.

38. Ayala MJ, Alió JL, Mulet ME, De La Hoz F. Treatment of la-ser in situ keratomileusis interface epithelial ingrowth with neodymium:yytrium-aluminum-garnet laser. Am J Ophthal-mol. 2008;145:630-634.

39. Mayer WJ, Grueterich M, Wolf AH, et al. Corneal cell response after flap creation using a mechanical microkeratome or a 200 kHz femtosecond laser. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39:1088-1092.

40. Linebarger EJ, Hardten DR, Lindstrom RL. Diffuse lamellar keratitis: diagnosis and management. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;26:1072-1077.

41. Randleman JB, Shah RD. LASIK interface complications: etiol-ogy, management, and outcomes. J Refract Surg. 2012;28:575-586.

42. Donnenfeld ED. Difluprednate for the prevention of ocu-lar inflammation postsurgery: an update. Clin Ophthalmol. 2011;5:811-816.

43. Tourtas T, Kopsachilis N, Meiller R, Kruse FE, Cursiefen C. Pressure-induced interlamellar stromal keratitis after laser in situ keratomileusis. Cornea. 2011;30:920-923.

44. Belin MW, Hannush SB, Yau CW, Schultze RL. Elevated intra-ocular pressure-induced interlamellar stromal keratitis. Oph-thalmology. 2002;109:1929-1933.

45. Bamba S, Rocha KM, Ramos-Esteban JC, Krueger RR. Incidence of rainbow glare after laser in situ keratomileusis flap creation with a 60 kHz femtosecond laser. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35:1082-1086.

46. Gatinel D, Saad A, Guilbert E, Rouger H. Simultaneous correc-tion of unilateral rainbow glare and residual astigmatism by un-dersurface flap photoablation after femtosecond laser-sssisted LASIK. J Refract Surg. 2015;31:406-410.

47. Randleman JB, Woodward M, Lynn MJ, Stulting RD. Risk as-sessment for ectasia after corneal refractive surgery. Ophthal-mology. 2008;115:37-50.

48. Santhiago MR, Wilson SE, Hallahan KM, et al. Changes in cus-tom biomechanical variables after femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40:918-928.

49. Santhiago MR, Smadja D, Gomes BF, et al. Association between the percent tissue altered and post-laser in situ keratomileu-sis ectasia in eyes with normal preoperative topography. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158:87-95.

50. Azar DT, Chang JH, Han KY. Wound healing after keratorefrac-tive surgery: review of biological and optical considerations. Cornea. 2012;31(suppl 1):S9-S19.

51. Torricelli AA, Singh V, Santhiago MR, Wilson SE. The corneal epithelial basement membrane: structure, function, and dis-ease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:6390-6400.

Figure A. (A) Large flap striae visible with green lissamine (arrows indicate flap edge) after LASIK with a mechanical microkeratome. (B) One day after flap hydration, stroking with an iris spatula and repositioning.

Figure B. Slit-lamp photograph of cornea with LASIK-induced neuro-throphic epitheliopathy. Note the diffuse punctate epithelial erosions with lissamine green staining (x indicates flap edge).

Figure C. (A) Slit-lamp photograph of epithelial ingrowth (arrows) after LASIK with a mechanical microkeratome. (B) Corneal topography shows induced changes on corneal curvature and elevation that simulate ectasia. These changes disappeared after removal of the epithelial ingrowth (not shown). (C) Optical coherence tomography provided the location (arrows) of the cells between the flap and the posterior corneal stromal bed.

Figure D. Slit-lamp photograph of cornea with diffuse lamellar keratitis. Arrows indicate the diffuse white, granular infiltrate occurring 2 days after LASIK.

Documents

Femtosecond Laser-Assisted LASIK Flap …...Femtosecond laser-created flaps are often more dif-ficult to lift compared to microkeratome-created flaps,9 and the risk of a tear is even