Literature DB >> 19835327

Effect of femtosecond laser energy level on corneal stromal cell death and inflammation.

Fabricio Witzel de Medeiros1, Harmeet Kaur, Vandana Agrawal, Shyam S Chaurasia, Jefferey Hammel, William J Dupps, Steven E Wilson.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To analyze the effects of variations in femtosecond laser energy level on corneal stromal cell death and inflammatory cell influx following flap creation in a rabbit model.
METHODS: Eighteen rabbits were stratified in three different groups according to level of energy applied for flap creation (six animals per group). Three different energy levels were chosen for both the lamellar and side cut: 2.7 microJ (high energy), 1.6 microJ (intermediate energy), and 0.5 microJ (low energy) with a 60 kHz, model II, femtosecond laser (IntraLase). The opposite eye of each rabbit served as a control. At the 24-hour time point after surgery, all rabbits were euthanized and the corneoscleral rims were analyzed for the levels of cell death and inflammatory cell influx with the terminal uridine deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) assay and immunocytochemistry for monocyte marker CD11b, respectively.
RESULTS: The high energy group (31.9+/-7.1 [standard error of mean (SEM) 2.9]) had significantly more TUNEL-positive cells in the central flap compared to the intermediate (22.2+/-1.9 [SEM 0.8], P=.004), low (17.9+/-4.0 [SEM 1.6], P< or =.001), and control eye (0.06+/-0.02 [SEM 0.009], P< or =.001) groups. The intermediate and low energy groups also had significantly more TUNEL-positive cells than the control groups (P< or =.001). The difference between the intermediate and low energy levels was not significant (P=.56). The mean for CD11b-positive cells/400x field at the flap edge was 26.1+/-29.3 (SEM 11.9), 5.8+/-4.1 (SEM 1.6), 1.6+/-4.1 (SEM 1.6), and 0.005+/-0.01 (SEM 0.005) for high energy, intermediate energy, low energy, and control groups, respectively. Only the intermediate energy group showed statistically more inflammatory cells than control eyes (P=.015), most likely due to variability between eyes.
CONCLUSIONS: Higher energy levels trigger greater cell death when the femtosecond laser is used to create corneal flaps. Greater corneal inflammatory cell infiltration is observed with higher femtosecond laser energy levels. Copyright 2009, SLACK Incorporated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19835327      PMCID: PMC2769018          DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20090917-08

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Refract Surg        ISSN: 1081-597X            Impact factor:   3.573


  12 in total

1.  Comparison of the IntraLase femtosecond laser and mechanical keratomes for laser in situ keratomileusis.

Authors:  Guy M Kezirian; Karl G Stonecipher
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.351

2.  Flap dimensions created with the IntraLase FS laser.

Authors:  Perry S Binder
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.351

3.  A femtosecond laser creates a stronger flap than a mechanical microkeratome.

Authors:  Jae Yong Kim; Myoung Joon Kim; Tae-im Kim; Hyun-jeung Choi; Jhang Ho Pak; Hungwon Tchah
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.799

Review 4.  Femtosecond laser-assisted corneal surgery.

Authors:  Shahzad I Mian; Roni M Shtein
Journal:  Curr Opin Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.761

5.  Proinflammatory chemokine induction in keratocytes and inflammatory cell infiltration into the cornea.

Authors:  J W Hong; J J Liu; J S Lee; R R Mohan; R R Mohan; D J Woods; Y G He; S E Wilson
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 4.799

6.  Femtosecond laser versus mechanical keratome LASIK for myopia.

Authors:  Robert Montés-Micó; Antonio Rodríguez-Galietero; Jorge L Alió
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2006-10-27       Impact factor: 12.079

7.  RANK, RANKL, OPG, and M-CSF expression in stromal cells during corneal wound healing.

Authors:  Steven E Wilson; Rajiv R Mohan; Marcelo Netto; Victor Perez; Dan Possin; Jing Huang; Robert Kwon; Andrei Alekseev; Juan P Rodriguez-Perez
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.799

8.  Confocal microscopy comparison of intralase femtosecond laser and Moria M2 microkeratome in LASIK.

Authors:  Jaime Javaloy; María T Vidal; Ayman M Abdelrahman; Alberto Artola; Jorge L Alió
Journal:  J Refract Surg       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.573

9.  Wavefront analysis comparison of LASIK outcomes with the femtosecond laser and mechanical microkeratomes.

Authors:  Fabricio W Medeiros; William M Stapleton; Jeffery Hammel; Ronald R Krueger; Marcelo V Netto; Steven E Wilson
Journal:  J Refract Surg       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 3.573

10.  Femtosecond laser and microkeratome corneal flaps: comparison of stromal wound healing and inflammation.

Authors:  Marcelo V Netto; Rajiv R Mohan; Fabricio W Medeiros; William J Dupps; Sunilima Sinha; Ronald R Krueger; W Michael Stapleton; Mary Rayborn; Chikako Suto; Steven E Wilson
Journal:  J Refract Surg       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.573

View more
  17 in total

1.  Surface quality of human corneal lenticules after femtosecond laser surgery for myopia comparing different laser parameters.

Authors:  Kathleen S Kunert; Marcus Blum; Gernot I W Duncker; Rabea Sietmann; Jens Heichel
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-01-15       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Comparison of keratocyte density after femtosecond laser vs mechanical microkeratome from 3 months up to 5 years after LASIK.

Authors:  Pilar Cañadas; Laura de Benito-Llopis; José Luis Hernández-Verdejo; Miguel A Teus
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-05-09       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  [LenSx® femto-LASIK, FEMTO LDV Z4® femto-LASIK, and PRK : Comparison of refractive results and an analysis of complications].

Authors:  T Pahlitzsch; M-L Pahlitzsch; U Sumarni; M Pahlitzsch
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 1.059

4.  Changes in Keratocyte Density and Visual Function Five Years After Laser In Situ Keratomileusis: Femtosecond Laser Versus Mechanical Microkeratome.

Authors:  Jay W McLaren; William M Bourne; Leo J Maguire; Sanjay V Patel
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-04-11       Impact factor: 5.258

Review 5.  Femtosecond laser in laser in situ keratomileusis.

Authors:  Marcella Q Salomão; Steven E Wilson
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.351

6.  Analysis of corneal endothelial cell density and morphology after laser in situ keratomileusis using two types of femtosecond lasers.

Authors:  Minoru Tomita; George O Waring; Miyuki Watabe
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-09-24

7.  Lower energy to make a corneal flap with a 60 kHz femtosecond laser reduces flap inflammation and corneal stromal cell death but weakens flap adhesion.

Authors:  Jae Yong Kim; Sung-Woo Joo; Jung Hae Sunwoo; Eun-Soon Kim; Myoung Joon Kim; Hungwon Tchah
Journal:  Korean J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-03-07

8.  Comparison of corneal sensitivity, tear function and corneal staining following laser in situ keratomileusis with two femtosecond laser platforms.

Authors:  Andrea Petznick; Annabel Chew; Reece C Hall; Cordelia Ml Chan; Mohamad Rosman; Donald Tan; Louis Tong; Jodhbir S Mehta
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-03-24

9.  Comparison of DLK incidence after laser in situ keratomileusis associated with two femtosecond lasers: Femto LDV and IntraLase FS60.

Authors:  Minoru Tomita; Yuko Sotoyama; Satoshi Yukawa; Tadayuki Nakamura
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-07-08

10.  Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser LASIK: comparison of corneal wound healing and inflammation.

Authors:  Zixian Dong; Xingtao Zhou; Jihong Wu; Zhehuan Zhang; Tao Li; Zimei Zhou; Shenghai Zhang; Gang Li
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 4.638

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.