Brighton Vision Center, Brighton, Michigan.
Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, W.K. Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Ophthalmology. 2013 Mar;120(3):e5-e20. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.08.013. Epub 2012 Nov 20.
To review the published literature to assess the safety, efficacy, and predictability of femtosecond lasers for the creation of corneal flaps for LASIK; to assess the reported outcomes of LASIK when femtosecond lasers are used to create corneal flaps; and to compare the differences in outcomes between femtosecond lasers and mechanical microkeratomes.
Literature searches of the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were last conducted on October 12, 2011, without language or date limitations. The searches retrieved a total of 636 references. Of these, panel members selected 58 articles that they considered to be of high or medium clinical relevance, and the panel methodologist rated each article according to the strength of evidence. Four studies were rated as level I evidence, 14 studies were rated as level II evidence, and the remaining studies were rated as level III evidence.
The majority of published studies evaluated a single laser platform. Flap reproducibility varied by device and the generation of the device. Standard deviations in flap thicknesses ranged from 4 to 18.4 μm. Visual acuities and complications reported with LASIK flaps created using femtosecond lasers are within Food and Drug Administration safety and efficacy limits. Of all complications, diffuse lamellar keratitis is the most common after surgery but is generally mild and self-limited. Corneal sensation was reported to normalize by 1 year after surgery. Unique complications of femtosecond lasers included transient light-sensitivity syndrome, rainbow glare, opaque bubble layer, epithelial breakthrough of gas bubbles, and gas bubbles within the anterior chamber.
Available evidence (levels I and II) indicates that femtosecond lasers are efficacious devices for creating LASIK flaps, with accompanying good visual results. Overall, femtosecond lasers were found to be as good as or better than mechanical microkeratomes for creating LASIK flaps. There are unique complications that can occur with femtosecond lasers, and long-term follow-up is needed to evaluate the technology fully.
回顾已发表的文献,评估飞秒激光用于 LASIK 制作角膜瓣的安全性、有效性和可预测性;评估飞秒激光用于制作角膜瓣的 LASIK 术后结果;并比较飞秒激光与机械角膜刀在结果上的差异。
文献检索的 PubMed 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库进行了 2011 年 10 月 12 日,没有语言或日期的限制。检索共得到 636 条参考文献。在这些参考文献中,专家组选择了 58 篇他们认为具有较高或中等临床相关性的文章,专家组的方法学家根据证据的强度对每篇文章进行了评分。四项研究被评为一级证据,14 项研究被评为二级证据,其余研究被评为三级证据。
大多数已发表的研究评估了单一的激光平台。瓣的可重复性因设备和设备的产生而不同。瓣厚度的标准偏差范围从 4 到 18.4 μm。使用飞秒激光制作 LASIK 瓣报告的视力和并发症均在食品和药物管理局的安全性和有效性范围内。在所有并发症中,弥漫性层状角膜炎是术后最常见的,但通常是轻微和自限性的。术后 1 年报告角膜感觉正常。飞秒激光的独特并发症包括短暂光敏感综合征、彩虹眩光、不透明气泡层、气体气泡上皮突破和前房内的气体气泡。
现有证据(一级和二级)表明,飞秒激光是制作 LASIK 瓣的有效设备,同时具有良好的视觉效果。总体而言,飞秒激光在制作 LASIK 瓣方面与机械角膜刀一样好,甚至更好。飞秒激光可能会出现一些独特的并发症,需要长期随访来全面评估该技术。