ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Characterization of Disrupted Tissue Interface Thickness for Keratorefractive Lenticule Extraction Procedure With ELITA Femtosecond Laser.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Atomic Force Microscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy for Characterization of Interface Surface Roughness After ELITA Femtosecond Laser Treatments.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study identified and compared variables causing changes in corneal tissue structure following the smooth incision lenticular keratomileusis (SILK) procedure using the ELITA Femtosecond Laser System by characterizing the resulting disrupted tissue interface. Methods: Seventy-one ex vivo porcine eyes and six human cadaver eyes underwent ELITA SILK with diverse surgical steps, pulse energies, scan overlaps, and surgical methods. Flaps created with the iFS Advanced Femtosecond Laser and ELITA systems were also evaluated. The disrupted interface thickness was determined by imaging corneal layers at different depths through the interface with confocal microscopy and counting layers with elevated backscattered light via computer program-assisted, subject-matter-expert visual judgment with blinding. Results: The disrupted interface thickness for ELITA SILK was 25 ± 3 µm; for the ELITA flap, it was 25 ± 2 µm; and for the iFS flap, it was 32 ± 3 µm. Factors influencing the total ELITA SILK disrupted interface thickness included laser pulse energy (0.11 µm/nJ; P < 0.01), scan overlap (5 µm; P < 0.01), and mechanical manipulation (7 µm; P < 0.01). Varying surgical techniques for mechanical manipulation resulted in a difference in disrupted interface thickness of 4 µm (P < 0.01). Conclusions: The ELITA SILK disrupted interface thickness was less than that of the iFS flap and similar to that of the ELITA flap. Assessing disrupted interface thickness identified factors influencing the quality of the corneal interface with SILK. Translational Relevance: The disrupted interface thickness, a new method for measuring corneal damage, has been used to quantify the potential effects of various refractive surgery factors on surgical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.