Comparison of visual acuity, refractive outcomes, and satisfaction between LASIK performed with a microkeratome and a femto laser

Figures & data

Table 1 Preoperative data

Variable	HM (n=1,137a)	FAL (n=229a)	P-value
Age (years)	25.0±5.8 (18.0 to 50.0)	27.0±7.3 (18.0 to 52.0)
Gender, eyes (male/female)	474/663	72/157
Sphere (D)	4.3±2.8 (−19.0 to 7.0)	−4.3±2.3 (−9.8 to 6.8)	0.656
Cylinder (D)	−1.0±1.0 (−6.0 to 5.0)	−1.0±1.3 (−12.8 to 3.3)	0.713
SE (D)	−4.5±2.8 (−19.5 to 8.0)	−4.5±2.5 (−13.4 to 8.0)	0.977

Note:

a Number of eyes.

Abbreviations: D, diopters; FAL, femto-assisted laser; HM, Hansatome microkeratome; SE, spherical equivalent.

Figure 1 Comparison of astigmatism.

Notes: (A) Hansatome microkeratome; (B) femto-assisted laser.

Figure 2 Comparison of attempted and achieved SE.

Notes: (A) Hansatome microkeratome; (B) femto-assisted laser.
Abbreviations: postop, postoperative; SE, spherical equivalent.

Table 2 Postoperative data

Variable	HM (n=1,137a)	FAL (n=229a)	P-value
Sphere (D)	0.0±1.28 (−10.8 to 6.8)	0.3±0.7 (−5.5 to 1.8)	<0.001
Cylinder (D)	−0.5±0.5 (−4.5 to 1.5)	−0.5±0.6 (−5.0 to 1.0)	<0.001
SE (D)	−0.3±1.3 (−11.6 to 6.8)	0.0±0.7 (−6.0 to 1.6)	<0.001

Note:

a Number of eyes.

Abbreviations: D, diopters; FAL, femto-assisted laser; HM, Hansatome microkeratome; SE, spherical equivalent.

Figure 3 Comparison of postoperative UCVA and preoperative BCVA.

Notes: (A) Hansatome microkeratome; (B) femto-assisted laser.
Abbreviations: UCVA, uncorrected visual acuity; BCVA, best-corrected visual acuity.

Figure 4 Comparison of refractive outcomes.

Notes: (A) Hansatome microkeratome; (B) femto-assisted laser.

Table 3 Patient satisfaction

Satisfaction level	HM (n=350a)		FAL (n=75a)
	Total	Percentage	Total	Percentage
Extremely satisfied	57	16.3	10	13.3
Very satisfied	102	29.1	30	40.0
Satisfied	161	46.0	30	40.0
Not satisfied	30	8.6	5	6.7

Note:

a Number of eyes.

Abbreviations: FAL, femto-assisted laser; HM, Hansatome microkeratome.