4.6 Article

Retinal Nerve Fibre Layer Thickness Change Following Femtosecond Laser-Assisted in situ Keratomileusis

Journal

FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.778666

Keywords

femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis; macular thickness; retinal nerve fibre layer thickness; optical coherence tomography; myopia

Funding

  1. Non-profit Central Research Institute Fund of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences [2018PT32029]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that there were alterations in retinal foveal and RNFL measurements by OCT 1 hour and 1 day after FS-LASIK surgery.
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) on retinal fovea thickness, volume, and retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) thickness.Methods: Thirty-seven eyes (37 patients) undergoing FS-LASIK were included in this prospective study. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) was performed 1 day before, 1 h and 1 day after FS-LASIK surgery.Result: Eighteen male and nineteen females were enrolled. Mean patient age was 22.94 +/- 4.22 years. One hour postoperatively, macula fovea thicknesses, macula fovea volume, macula parafovea thickness, macula parafovea volume, macula perifovea thickness, macula perifove volume, temporal RNFL thickness, and superior RNFL thickness measures showed significant decrease (t = 6.171, 6.032, and 9.837, 9.700, 2.532, 4.393, 4.926, 2.265; p = 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.016, 0.000, 0.000, and 0.011). Day 1 post-operation, macula fovea thicknesses, macula fovea volume, macula parafovea thickness, macula parafovea volume, and inferior RNFL thickness measures showed significant change compared to preoperative measures (t = 3.620, 3.220, 2.901, 2.910, 3.632; p = 0.001, 0.003, 0.006, 0.006, and 0.001).Conclusion: Our data suggest there are alterations in retinal foveal and RNFL measurements by OCT 1 h and 1 day after FS-LASIK surgery.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available