Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995) · 1996
Management of detached lenticule after in situ keratomileusis.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim E K, Choe C M, Kang S J, Kim H B
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Attachment of a keratomileusis lenticule without sutures is a commonly used technique that reduces surgery time and makes the procedure more simple. Detachment of the lenticule after surgery is a difficult complication to manage.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three cases of lenticular detachment occurred among 74 eyes of microkeratome in situ keratomileusis without suture. After thorough washing of the lenticule and stromal bed, the lenticules were reattached with air drying.
RESULTS: In the first eye, the lenticule was reattached successfully with air only. In the second and third eyes, epithelial growth along the interface appeared after reattachment. In spite of removing the epithelium from the interface and suturing the lenticule to the stromal bed four times, the epithelial growth recurred along the interface. Peripheral corneal neovascularization forced the surgeon to abandon more trials of resuturing. In the second eye, the lenticule was discarded because the epithelial growth along the interface could not be blocked. In the third eye, the edge of the lenticule was buried into the stroma, mimicking epikeratoplasty. All three eyes retained useful visual acuity.
CONCLUSIONS: A detached lenticule after microkeratome keratomileusis is difficult to replace without epithelial growth in the interface. This complication may be managed successfully.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three cases of lenticular detachment occurred among 74 eyes of microkeratome in situ keratomileusis without suture. After thorough washing of the lenticule and stromal bed, the lenticules were reattached with air drying.
RESULTS: In the first eye, the lenticule was reattached successfully with air only. In the second and third eyes, epithelial growth along the interface appeared after reattachment. In spite of removing the epithelium from the interface and suturing the lenticule to the stromal bed four times, the epithelial growth recurred along the interface. Peripheral corneal neovascularization forced the surgeon to abandon more trials of resuturing. In the second eye, the lenticule was discarded because the epithelial growth along the interface could not be blocked. In the third eye, the edge of the lenticule was buried into the stroma, mimicking epikeratoplasty. All three eyes retained useful visual acuity.
CONCLUSIONS: A detached lenticule after microkeratome keratomileusis is difficult to replace without epithelial growth in the interface. This complication may be managed successfully.