Analysis of the visual and refractive outcome following laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) retreatment over a four-year follow-up period

Abstract

LASIK retreatment is a safe and effective procedure for correcting residual refractive errors after LASIK. After retreatment, the visual and refractive outcome remained stable during the four-year follow-up period of the study.

Laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy retreatment after laser in situ keratomileusis

“…These findings are comparable to those reported after LASIK revision by Saeed et al 3 and Netto and Wilson, 4 who recorded a UCVA of 20/40 or better in 95% of cases and 92% of cases, respectively. The mean baseline SE in these 2 studies (À4.85 G 2.57 D and À5.90 G 2.50 D, respectively) was comparable to that in our patients.…”

“…Potential complications of LASIK revision include flap-related problems (eg, difficulty relifting the flap), epithelial ingrowth at the flap interface, and post-LASIK corneal ectasia (particularly when the residual stromal thickness after the second procedure is estimated to be %250 mm). [3][4][5][6] Surface ablation procedures (PRK and LASEK) preserve corneal stromal tissue and are not associated with flap-related complications. Photorefractive keratectomy enhancement after myopic LASIK was previously evaluated by Carones et al 11 LASEK is superior to PRK.…”

“…[3][4][5][6] Previous reports show that LASIK enhancement, whether by flap relifting or by cutting a new flap, successfully treats residual refractive errors after LASIK in most cases. [3][4][5][6][7][8] However, the amount of the estimated residual stromal tissue after LASIK revision is a limiting factor because a residual stromal thickness of 250 mm or less has been associated with post-LASIK corneal ectasia. 9,10 Surface ablation procedures, including photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK), are potentially useful modalities in the treatment of residual refractive errors after LASIK when further LASIK surgery is deemed unsafe.…”

Aspheric Ablation Depth as the Target Depth for Enhanced Wavefront-Guided Myopic Retreatments After Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis

“…9,15 With conventional LASIK retreatment, the ratio of postretreatment refraction within 60.5 D has been reported as 61%-80.5%. 10,19,20 In the study by Jin et al, only 65% in the wavefront-guided retreatment group, compared with 92% of eyes in the conventional LASIK retreatment group, were within 0.50 D. 15 These results indicated that conventional LASIK retreatment may be superior in regard to refractive predictability over wavefront-guided treatments. However, the study by Jin et al did not directly compare the preoperative and postoperative HOAs between eyes treated by conventional and wavefront LASIK retreatments.…”

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] The application of wavefront-guided technology has significantly led to the reduction of high-order aberrations (HOAs) induced by conventional LASIK. Therefore, this technology has also been widely used in LASIK retreatments.…”