Comparison of Complication Rates between Manual and Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Techniques for Intrastromal Corneal Ring Segments Implantation in Keratoconus

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To compare the incidence of complications between manual and femtosecond-laser assisted surgery for intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS) implantation.

Material and methods: This study included keratoconus patients who had ICRS implantation using manual dissection and using the femtosecond laser with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Uncorrected (UDVA) corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity (CDVA), refraction, corneal topography and aberrometry, pachymetry map and slit-lamp microscopy were assessed before and after surgery.

Results: The study included 265 eyes in the manual group and 111 in the femtosecond laser group. In the manual group, there were complications in 48 eyes (18.11%); while in the femtosecond laser 4 eyes had a complication (3.6%). In the manual group, the most frequent complications were ICRS exchange/adjustment for visual and refractive enhancement (25 eyes; 9.43%) and late ICRS spontaneous extrusion (15 eyes; 5.66%). In the manual group, 81.25% of complications were observed during the first 3 years of surgeon’s experience. Eyes who suffered a complication had preoperatively higher mean refractive (p = .002) and topographic cylinder (p = .003) and lower UDVA (p = .005) and CDVA (p = .002). After a second surgical procedure for complication management visual, refractive and topographic outcomes significantly improved.

Conclusion: Manual mechanical ICRS surgery shows a higher rate of intra- and postoperative mechanical and refractive complications when compared to femtosecond laser assisted technique. The incidence is specially higher during the surgeon’s first years of implementation of the technique.

KEYWORDS:

• keratoconus; ICRS
• Manual Surgery
• Femtosecond-laser surgery
• Complication rates

Acknowledgments

The authors have no proprietary interest in any of the materials mentioned in this article.

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.