Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Letter
Laboratory model of bursting pressures of femtosecond laser-assisted penetrating keratoplasty wounds using novel pattern designs
  1. William Gilmer1,2,
  2. Stephen D McLeod1,2,
  3. Bennie H Jeng1,2
  1. 1Department of Ophthalmology and Francis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, USA
  2. 2Department of Ophthalmology, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Bennie H Jeng, Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, 10 Koret Way, K-304, San Francisco, CA 94143-0730, USA; jengb{at}vision.ucsf.edu

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

The femtosecond laser is being used with increasing popularity to create incisions for customised trephination in penetrating keratoplasty.1 Several femtosecond laser assisted keratoplasty (FLAK) pattern designs have been studied,2–5 all demonstrating superiority of various shaped cuts (particularly the Top-Hat) over traditional vertical trephination in resistance of the wound to leakage from elevated intraocular pressures (IOP).

One of the disadvantages, however, of the more popular FLAK patterns such as the Top-Hat, Mushroom …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • An additional table is published online only. To view this file please visit the journal online (http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-302037).

  • The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

  • Funding Supported in part by a grant from That Man May See and Research to Prevent Blindness to the Department of Ophthalmology, University of California San Francisco.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.