4.5 Article

Differences in change of post-operative antioxidant levels between laser-assisted lenticule extraction and femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcmm.18069

Keywords

ascorbic acid; dry eye disease; femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis; laser-assisted lenticule extraction; total antioxidant capacity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the effects of femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and laser-assisted lenticule extraction (LALEX) on total antioxidant capacity (TAC) and ascorbic acid (AA). The results showed that LALEX surgery caused a smaller reduction in ascorbic acid, especially in patients with dry eye disease.
To evaluate the change of total antioxidant capacity (TAC) and ascorbic acid (AA) between femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and laser-assisted lenticule extraction (LALEX). A prospective non-randomized study was conducted, and 33 and 75 eyes that had undergone FS-LASIK or LALEX surgeries were enrolled, respectively. The tear films near corneal incisions were collected, and the concentrations of TAC and AA were determined. The generalized linear mixed model was adopted to calculate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) of TAC and AA between the two groups. The AA reduction was significant 1 month after the LALEX and FS-LASIK procedures (both p < 0.05), and the decrement in AA level was significantly larger in the FS-LASIK group compared to the LALEX group (p = 0.0002). In the subgroup analysis, the LALEX group demonstrated a lower decrement in TAC level in the individuals with dry eye disease (DED) than the FS-LASIK group (p = 0.0424), and the LALEX group demonstrated a significantly lower AA decrement in the participants with high myopia (p = 0.0165) and DED (p = 0.0043). The LALEX surgery causes lesser AA decrement compared to FS-LASIK surgery especially for the patients with DED.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available