Advertisement

Advances in Therapy

, Volume 36, Issue 12, pp 3471–3482 | Cite as

Comparison of Excimer Laser Versus Femtosecond Laser Assisted Trephination in Penetrating Keratoplasty: A Retrospective Study

  • Gábor TóthEmail author
  • Nóra Szentmáry
  • Achim Langenbucher
  • Elina Akhmedova
  • Moatasem El-Husseiny
  • Berthold Seitz
Original Research

Abstract

Introduction

To compare the impact of non-mechanical excimer-assisted (EXCIMER) and femtosecond laser-assisted (FEMTO) trephination on outcomes after penetrating keratoplasty (PK).

Methods

In this retrospective study, 68 eyes from 23 females and 45 males (mean age at time of surgery, 53.3 ± 19.8 years) were included. Inclusion criteria were one surgeon (BS), primary central PK, Fuchs’ dystrophy (FUCHS) or keratoconus (KC), no previous intraocular surgery, graft oversize 0.1 mm and 16-bite double running suture. Trephination was performed using a manually guided 193-nm Zeiss Meditec MEL70 excimer laser (EXCIMER group: 18 FUCHS, 17 KC) or 60-kHz IntraLase™ femtosecond laser (FEMTO group: 16 FUCHS, 17 KC). Subjective refractometry (trial glasses) and corneal topography analysis (Pentacam HR; Casia SS-1000 AS-OCT; TMS-5) were performed preoperatively, before removal of the first suture (11.4 ± 1.9 months) and after removal of the second suture (22.6 ± 3.8 months).

Results

Before suture removal, mean refractive/AS-OCT topographic astigmatism did not differ significantly between EXCIMER and FEMTO. After suture removal, mean refractive/Pentacam/AS-OCT topographic astigmatism was significantly higher in the FEMTO (6.2 ± 2.9 D/7.1 ± 3.2 D/7.4 ± 3.3 D) than in the EXCIMER patients (4.3 ± 3.0 D/4.4 ± 3.1 D/4.0 ± 2.9 D) (p ≤ 0.005). Mean corrected distance visual acuity increased from 0.22 and 0.23 preoperatively to 0.55 and 0.53 before or 0.7 and 0.6 after suture removal in the EXCIMER and FEMTO groups, respectively. Differences between EXCIMER and FEMTO were only pronounced in the KC subgroup.

Conclusion

Non-mechanical EXCIMER trephination seems to have advantages regarding postoperative corneal astigmatism and visual acuity compared with FEMTO trephination, especially in KC. A bigger sample size and longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the long-term impact of EXCIMER and FEMTO trephination on postoperative topographic and visual outcomes.

Keywords

Astigmatism Excimer Femtosecond Laser Ophthalmology Penetrating keratoplasty Visual acuity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We hereby thank all the participants of the study.

Funding

No funding or sponsorship was received for this study or publication of this article. The Rapid Service Fee was funded by the University of Saarland.

Medical Writing Assistance

Language editing and assistance for this article were provided by San Francisco Edit (San Francisco, USA) and funded by the University of Saarland.

Authorship

All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.

Disclosures

Gábor Tóth, Nóra Szentmáry, Achim Langenbucher, Elina Akhmedova, Moatasem El-Husseiny and Berthold Seitz have nothing to disclose.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Saarland University, Germany (no. 201/11). All procedures performed in our study involving human participants were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent for participation and publication of patient data was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Data Availability

The data sets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. 1.
    Wang J, Hasenfus A, Schirra F, Bohle RM, Szentmáry N. Changing indications for penetrating keratoplasty in Homburg/Saar from 2001 to 2010—histopathology of 1200 corneal buttons. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251(3):797–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seitz B, Hager T, Langenbucher A, Naumann GOH. Reconsidering sequential double running suture removal after penetrating keratoplasty: a prospective randomized study comparing excimer laser and motor trephination. Cornea. 2018;37(3):301–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoppenreijs VPT, van Rij G, Beekhuis WH, et al. Causes of high astigmatism after keratoplasty. Doc Ophthalmol. 1993;85:21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Seitz B, Szentmáry N, Langenbucher A, et al. PKP for keratoconus—from hand/motor trephine to excimer laser and back to femtosecond. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 2016;233:727–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Naumann GOH, Seitz B, Lang GK, et al. 193 nm excimer laser trephination in penetrating keratoplasty. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 1993;203:252–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Steinert RF, Ignacio TS, Sarayba MA. “Top hat”-shaped penetrating keratoplasty using the femtosecond laser. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:689–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Price FW, Price MO. Femtosecond laser shaped penetrating keratoplasty: one-year results utilizing a top-hat configuration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145:210–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Kus MM, et al. Nonmechanical corneal trephination with the excimer laser improves outcome after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:1156–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Birnbaum F, Wiggermann A, Maier PC, et al. Clinical results of 123 femtosecond laser-assisted penetrating keratoplasties. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251:95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Szentmáry N, Langenbucher A, Naumann GOH, et al. Intra-individual variability of penetrating keratoplasty outcome after excimer laser versus motorized corneal trephination. J Refract Surg. 2006;22:804–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chamberlain WD, Rush SW, Mathers WD, et al. Comparison of femtosecond laser-assisted keratoplasty versus conventional penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:486–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gaster RN, Dumitrascu O, Rabinowitz YS. Penetrating keratoplasty using femtosecond laser-enabled keratoplasty with zig–zag incisions versus a mechanical trephine in patients with keratoconus. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:1195–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Daniel MC, Böhringer D, Maier P, et al. Comparison of long-term outcomes of femtosecond laser-assisted keratoplasty with conventional keratoplasty. Cornea. 2016;35:293–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Resch MD, Zemova E, Marsovszky L, et al. In vivo confocal microscopic imaging of the cornea after femtosecond and excimer laser-assisted penetrating keratoplasty. J Refract Surg. 2015;31:620–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tóth G, Butskhrikidze, Seitz B, et al. Endothelial cell density and corneal graft thickness following excimer laser vs. femtosecond laser-assisted penetrating keratoplasty—a prospective randomized study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2019;257:975–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    El-Husseiny M, Seitz B, Langenbucher A, et al. Excimer versus femtosecond laser assisted penetrating keratoplasty in keratoconus and Fuchs dystrophy: intraoperative pitfalls. J Ophthalmol. 2015;2015:645830.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoffmann F. Suture technique for penetrating keratoplasty. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1976;169:584–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Olson RJ. Modulation of postkeratoplasty astigmatism by surgical and suturing techniques. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 1983;23:137–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Naumann GOH. Corneal transplantation in anterior segment diseases. The Bowman lecture. Eye. 1995;9:395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Hager T, et al. Penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus—excimer versus femtosecond laser trephination. Open Ophthalmol J. 2017;11:225–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Perl T, Charlton KH, Binder PS. Disparate diameter grafting. Astigmatism, intraocular pressure, and visual acuity. Ophthalmology. 1981;88:774–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seitz B, Langenbucher A. Naumann GOH [Perspectives of excimer laser-assisted keratoplasty]. Ophthalmologe. 2011;108:817–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Rij G, Waring GO III. Configuration of corneal trephine opening using five different trephines in human donor eyes. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106:1228–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Farid M, Steinert RF, Gaster RN, et al. Comparison of penetrating keratoplasty performed with a femtosecond laser zig-zag incision versus conventional blade trephanation. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:1638–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shumway CL, Aggrawal S, Farid M, et al. Penetrating keratoplasty using the femtosecond laser: a comparison of postoperative visual acuity and astigmatism by suture pattern. Cornea. 2018;37:1490–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mader TH, Yuan R, Lynn MJ, et al. Changes in keratometric astigmatism after suture removal more than 1 year after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 1993;100:119–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lin DTC, Wilson SE, Reidy JJ, et al. Topographic changes that occur with 10-0 running suture removal following penetrating keratoplasty. Refract Corneal Surg. 1990;6:21–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Healthcare Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologySaarland University Medical CenterHomburg/SaarGermany
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologySemmelweis UniversityBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Experimental Ophthalmology, Saarland UniversityHomburg/SaarGermany

Personalised recommendations