Laser in situ keratomileusis flap thickness using the Hansatome microkeratome with zero compression heads

Abstract

To evaluate predictability and possible factors affecting flap thickness in laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) using the Hansatome microkeratome (Bausch & Lomb Surgical) with zero compression heads. Zentrum für Refraktive Chirurgie Münster, Münster, Germany. A prospective nonrandomized comparative (self-controlled) trial analyzing flap thickness in 153 consecutive patients having LASIK using the Hansatome microkeratome with zero compression was conducted. Two hundred thirty-eight eyes that had uncomplicated primary LASIK (n = 237) or secondary LASIK (n = 1) by the same surgeon and same technique using 4 different microkeratomes of the same model were evaluated. Each keratome cut was performed with a new Accuglide (Bausch & Lomb) blade in a 160 microm (n = 89), 180 microm (n = 128), or 200 microm (n = 21) Hansatome zero compression head coupled to a 8.5 mm (n = 106) or 9.5 mm (n = 131) suction ring. Only Hansatome elements with the same serial numbers were combined. Ultrasound subtraction pachymetry was routinely used to determine intraoperative flap thickness. Flap thickness was correlated with microkeratome head dimension, suction ring size, preoperative keratometry obtained by Orbscan IIz (Bausch & Lomb), preoperative corneal thickness as obtained by ultrasound pachymetry, refractive error, and age. Measured intraoperative flap thickness was significantly different (P<.01) from predicted flap thickness. The mean flap thickness was 97 microm +/- 18 (SD) (range 65 to 163 microm), 111 +/- 20 microm (range 61 to 177 microm), and 131 +/- 20 microm (range 89 to 162 microm) for the 160 microm, the 180 microm, and 200 microm heads, respectively. There was a good correlation between microkeratome head and corneal flap thickness. However, there was a variability between devices. There was a low correlation between baseline ultrasound pachymetry at the time of surgery and corneal flap thickness (r = .26) and a small effect of ring size. There was no correlation with keratometry, refractive error, or age. There was a remarkable difference in the flap thickness of microkeratomes of the same make and model. This emphasizes the need to measure intraoperative flap thickness and to evaluate every microkeratome separately. Factors affecting flap thickness seem to be more device dependent than patient related; obtaining flap thickness in the first eye did not enable predictions of the flap thickness in the fellow eye.