4.3 Article

Central Corneal Volume and Endothelial Cell Count Following Femtosecond Laser-assisted Refractive Cataract Surgery Compared to Conventional Phacoemulsification

Journal

JOURNAL OF REFRACTIVE SURGERY
Volume 28, Issue 6, Pages 387-U20

Publisher

SLACK INC
DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20120508-02

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To compare the effect of conventional phacoemulsification and femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery on the cornea using Scheimpflug imaging and noncontact specular microscopy. METHODS: In each group, 38 eyes (38 patients) underwent cataract surgery using either femtosecond laser-assisted (Alcon LenSx laser) (femtolaser group) or conventional phacoemulsification (phaco group). Central corneal thickness, 3-mm corneal volume, and Pentacam Nucleus Staging (PNS) were determined by a rotating Scheimpflug camera (Pentacam HR, Oculus Optikgerate GmbH), and the volume stress index was calculated at 1 day and 1 month postoperatively. Endothelial cell count was measured by noncontact specular microscopy preoperatively, 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month postoperatively. RESULTS: Central corneal thickness was significantly higher in the phaco group (607 +/- 91 mu m) than in the femtolaser group (580 +/- 42 mu m) on day 1, but did not differ significantly preoperatively and at 1 week and 1 month. Volume stress index at day 1 was significantly lower in the femtolaser group than in the phaco group (P<.05) but did not differ significantly at 1 month. Multivariate regression analysis showed that the type of surgery had a significant effect on central corneal thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery causes less corneal swelling in the early postoperative period and may cause less trauma to corneal endothelial cells than manual phacoemulsification. [J Refract Surg. 2012;28(6):387-391.] doi:10.3928/1081597X-20120508-02

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available