Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 2, 2026
An “All-laser” Endothelial Transplant
Published on: July 6, 2015
Femtosecond laser vs mechanical microkeratome for hyperopic laser in situ keratomileusis
Raquel Gil-Cazorla1, Miguel A Teus, Laura de Benito-Llopis
1Vissum Santa Hortensia, Madrid, Spain, E. U. Óptica Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. raquelgil@cnoo.es
Purpose:
To compare the outcomes of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) performed with a femtosecond laser vs a mechanical microkeratome for the correction of low to moderate hyperopia.
Design:
Retrospective, nonrandomized, interventional, comparative case series.
Methods:
settings: Vissum Santa Hortensia, Madrid, Spain.study population and procedures: Patients who had undergone LASIK to correct their hyperopia using the 60-kHz IntraLase femtosecond laser were compared to age- and refraction-matched patients in whom the Moria M2 microkeratome was used. Visual and refractive results 3 months postoperatively were compared between both groups.
Results:
A total of 144 eyes were analyzed (72 in each group). Mean preoperative sphere was +3.45 ± 1.0 diopters (D) in the IntraLase group vs +3.18 ± 1.3 D in the M2 group (P = .1). Results 3 months postoperatively were: mean residual sphere, +0.44 ± 0.6D vs +0.72 ± 0.8 D (P = .02), respectively; uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), 0.89 ± 0.2 vs 0.80 ± 0.2 (P = .04); best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), 0.96 ± 0.2 vs 0.92 ± 0.2 (P = .2); safety index, 0.97 ± 0.1 vs 0.98 ± 0.1 (P = .5); efficacy index, 0.89 ± 0.2 vs 0.84 ± 0.2 (P = .3).
Conclusions:
Hyperopic LASIK performed with the IntraLase femtosecond laser seems to achieve better refractive results 3 months after the surgery compared to the M2 microkeratome, without significant differences in safety between both procedures.
