Transepithelial or intrastromal femtosecond laser arcuate keratotomy to manage corneal astigmatism at the time of cataract surgery.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the results of intrastromal arcuate incisions (AIs) and transepithelial AIs to treat corneal astigmatism during femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS). METHODS: This retrospective study included 20 patients with corneal astigmatism between 0.70 and 2.00 diopters (D) who underwent FLACS with concurrent intrastromal AIs in one eye and transepithelial AIs in the fellow eye. The main outcomes measures at 2-3 months of follow-up were the difference between pre-operative and postoperative keratometric corneal cylinder (Kcyl), the correction index (CI) and the percentage of overcorrection. RESULTS: The mean difference between preoperative and postoperative Kcyl revealed a mean value of 0.36 ±â€¯0.37 D in the transepithelial group and 0.53 ±â€¯0.42 D in the intrastromal group (p < 0.001). The mean CI was 0.83 ±â€¯0.71 in the transepithelial group and 0.68 ±â€¯0.29 in intrastromal group (p = 0.17). Five eyes (25 %) had an astigmatism overcorrection in the transepithelial group and 1 eye (5%) in the intrastromal group. CONCLUSIONS: Both intrastromal and transepithelial AIs showed potential for mild to moderate astigmatism correction and appeared to be a safe procedure. Despite transepithelial AIs presented a higher CI, the intrastromal AIs results were more predictable.

Queratotomía arcuata transepitelial o intraestromal con láser de femtosegundo para corrección de astigmatismo corneal en el momento de la cirugía de cataratas / Transepithelial or intrastromal femtosecond laser arcuate keratotomy to manage corneal astigmatism at the time of cataract surgery

Objetivo El objetivo del estudio fue comparar los resultados de las incisiones arcuatas (IA) intraestromales y transepiteliales para tratar el astigmatismo corneal en el momento de la cirugía de catarata asistida con láser de femtosegundo (FLACS). Método Este estudio retrospectivo incluyó 20 pacientes con astigmatismo corneal entre 0,70 y 2,00 dioptrías (D) que se sometieron a FLACS con IA intraestromales en un ojo e IA transepiteliales en el ojo adelfo. Los principales datos evaluados a los 2-3meses de seguimiento fueron la diferencia entre el cilindro corneal queratométrico preoperatorio y postoperatorio (Kcyl), el índice de corrección (IC) y el porcentaje de sobrecorrección. Resultados La diferencia media entre Kcyl preoperatorio y postoperatorio reveló un valor medio de 0,36±0,37D en el grupo transepitelial y 0,53±0,42D en el grupo intraestromal (p<0,001). El IC medio fue de 0,83±0,71 en el grupo transepitelial y de 0,68±0,29 en el grupo intraestromal (p=0,17). Cinco ojos (25%) tuvieron una sobrecorrección del astigmatismo en el grupo transepitelial y un ojo (5%) en el grupo intraestromal. Conclusiones Tanto las IA intraestromales como las IA transepiteliales mostraron potencial para la corrección de astigmatismo leve a moderado y parecen ser un procedimiento seguro. A pesar de que las IA transepiteliales presentaron un IC más alto, los resultados de las IA intraestromales fueron más predecibles (AU)

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the results of intrastromal arcuate incisions (AIs) and transepithelial AIs to treat corneal astigmatism during femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS). Methods This retrospective study included 20 patients with corneal astigmatism between 0.70 and 2.00 diopters (D) who underwent FLACS with concurrent intrastromal AIs in one eye and transepithelial AIs in the fellow eye. The main outcomes measures at 2-3months of follow-up were the difference between preoperative and postoperative keratometric corneal cylinder (Kcyl), the correction index (CI) and the percentage of overcorrection. Results The mean difference between preoperative and postoperative Kcyl revealed a mean value of 0.36±0.37D in the transepithelial group and 0.53±0.42D in the intrastromal group (P<.001). The mean CI was 0.83±0.71 in the transepithelial group and 0.68±0.29 in intrastromal group (P=.17). Five eyes (25%) had an astigmatism overcorrection in the transepithelial group and 1eye (5%) in the intrastromal group. Conclusions Both intrastromal and transepithelial AIs showed potential for mild to moderate astigmatism correction and appeared to be a safe procedure. Despite transepithelial AIs presented a higher CI, the intrastromal AIs results were more predictable (AU)