56
Views
8
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research

FS200 femtosecond laser LASIK flap digital analysis parameter evaluation: comparing two different types of patient interface applanation cones

&
Pages 1103-1108 | Published online: 10 Jun 2013

Figures & data

Figure 1 The Alcon/WaveLight® FS200 patient interfaces 1504 (metal and glass, top) and 1505 (clear cone, bottom).

Figure 1 The Alcon/WaveLight® FS200 patient interfaces 1504 (metal and glass, top) and 1505 (clear cone, bottom).

Table 1 Intended diameters of the flaps studied comparing the two groups

Figure 2 Measurement of flap thickness from the high-resolution meridional scan provided by the anterior-segment optical coherence tomography system.

Note: The specific flap was programmed to 120 μm of thickness.
Figure 2 Measurement of flap thickness from the high-resolution meridional scan provided by the anterior-segment optical coherence tomography system.

Figure 3 Flap diameter predictability using the clear cone interface 1505.

Notes: Vertical axis, measured difference in flap diameter = achieved postoperatively – programmed preoperatively. Horizontal axis, programmed flap diameter. All units in mm.
Figure 3 Flap diameter predictability using the clear cone interface 1505.

Figure 4 Flap thickness predictability using the clear cone interface 1505.

Notes: Measured central flap thickness (by anterior-segment optical coherence tomography imaging) versus programmed flap thickness. All units in μm.
Figure 4 Flap thickness predictability using the clear cone interface 1505.

Table 2 Measured (via anterior-segment optical coherence tomography imaging) versus programmed flap thickness, as obtained using the clear cone interface