Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Lasik enhancements: a comparison of lifting to recutting the flap.

Authors: Elizabeth A, Davis; David R, Hardten; Michelle, Lindstrom; Thomas W, Samuelson; Richard L, Lindstrom;

Lasik enhancements: a comparison of lifting to recutting the flap.

Abstract

To compare the visual outcomes and incidence of complications of lifting with recutting the lamellar flap in laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) enhancement surgery.Retrospective case-control study.Two hundred twelve consecutive eyes undergoing a LASIK enhancement procedure at a single surgery location during a 5-year period.Charts of participants were obtained and outcome measures obtained.Uncorrected visual acuity, best-corrected visual acuity, refractive error, complications.Relifting of flaps was performed in 164 of 212 eyes (77.4%), and recutting of flaps was performed in 48 of 212 eyes (22.6%). There were no significant differences in early visual outcomes between the two groups. At 1 year patients had significantly better uncorrected vision if the flap was lifted rather than recut (20/24.7 vs. 20/31.3, P < 0.008). In addition, the flap lift group had a significantly more stable refraction at 1 year than did the recut group (change in spherical equivalent: +0.05 diopters (D) vs. -0.57 D). The incidence of complications did not significantly differ between the two groups.LASIK enhancement surgery can be performed safely and effectively by either lifting or recutting a flap. Lifting the flap may show better long-term stability of refractive error and uncorrected acuity.

Keywords

Adult, Male, Reoperation, Corneal Stroma, Incidence, Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ, Visual Acuity, Middle Aged, Surgical Flaps, Postoperative Complications, Treatment Outcome, Case-Control Studies, Myopia, Humans, Female, Intraoperative Complications, Retrospective Studies

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    56
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
56
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!