Late approach for LASIK flap striae.

A 24-year-old man was referred for postrefractive surgery evaluation. The patient had a history of uneventful laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) in both eyes 3 months previously. According to the surgeon who originally performed the surgery, on slitlamp examination, only microstriae in the left eye was detected on postoperative day 1 and a more conservative follow-up approach was adopted without further immediate intervention. The patient returned only 3 months after surgery, complaining of low vision in the left eye that, according to the patient, had been present since postoperative week 2. The patient was then referred for examination and surgical procedure with a diagnosis of significant postoperative striae. The slitlamp examination revealed a LASIK flap with striae, epithelial filling, and a wrinkled appearance (Figure 1JOURNAL/jcrs/04.03/02158034-202312000-00017/figure1/v/2023-11-20T151558Z/r/image-tiff). There were no signs of infection or inflammation. Originally, the LASIK flap was programmed to be 110 µm. Preoperative manifest refraction in the right eye was -5.25 (20/20) and in the left eye was -5.25 (20/20). Assuming it is a case of late-approach LASIK flap striae, how would you proceed? Would you try to hydrate and lift the flap and just reposition it? Would you avoid lifting and associate phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK) with excimer laser on top of the flap? Would you consider topo-guided surgery with regularization of the visual axis or even amputation of the flap?

Therapeutic visual rehabilitation in a patient with high hyperopia and flat cornea years after radial keratotomy.

A 51-year-old man was referred for refractive surgery evaluation. Spectacle dependence and poor visual quality in both eyes was his chief complaint. He cannot tolerate contact lenses. Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was 20/40 in both eyes. Manifest refraction was +5.25 -2.25 @ 90 (20/40) in the right eye and +6.25 -2.25 @ 105 (20/40) in the left eye. The patient had a history of radial keratotomy (RK) almost 30 years ago in both eyes and at the slitlamp presented 8 RK incisions, proportionally spaced between one another. All incisions were closed, and there were no relevant signs of scarring. The patient denied any history of ocular trauma, systemic disease, or medications. Corneal topography with different technologies revealed an irregular pattern with marked central flattening in both eyes, with some points below 30 diopters (D) (Supplemental Figures 1 and 2, available at http://links.lww.com/JRS/A862 and http://links.lww.com/JRS/A863, respectively). There were no signs of cataract, and fundus examination was normal. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) of the right eye revealed a more homogeneous thickness pattern, little variation between the thinnest and thickest areas, and adequate transparency (Figure 1JOURNAL/jcrs/04.03/02158034-202306000-00018/figure1/v/2023-05-31T172126Z/r/image-tiff). In the left eye, there is wide variability between the thinnest and thickest stromal points, with annular thinning and central thickening (Figure 2JOURNAL/jcrs/04.03/02158034-202306000-00018/figure2/v/2023-05-31T172126Z/r/image-tiff). Both eyes show marked epithelial irregularity. Considering this patient's current ocular status, how would you reach visual rehabilitation? Because he is contact lens intolerant, would you consider surface ablation, for example, photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) with mitomycin-C (MMC)? If that were the case, would you think of an optimized or a topography-guided (TG) treatment? Would you immediately consider a corneal transplant option? Would you instead consider a more conservative approach? Which one and why?