Purpose
To compare the outcomes of femtosecond astigmatic keratotomy (FSAK) and manual astigmatic keratotomy (AK) in treatment of postkeratoplasty astigmatism.
Methods
A retrospective, comparative, pairwise‐matched case series including 150 patients who underwent either FSAK (n = 75) or manual AK (n = 75) for the treatment of astigmatism (>3.00 D) following penetrating keratoplasty or deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty. Pairwise matching for baseline variables (age, visual acuity and astigmatism) was performed.
Results
Mean age was 57.5 ± 16.0 years. The FSAK group had significantly better postoperative best‐corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (p = 0.010), uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) (p = 0.049), corneal astigmatism (p = 0.020) and manifest astigmatism (p < 0.001) compared with the manual AK group. Gain of ≥3 lines in BCVA (logMAR) was seen in five eyes (6.7%) and 21 eyes (28.0%) in manual AK and FSAK, respectively (p = 0.005). Alpins vector analysis showed lower (closer to 0) index of success (0.50 ± 0.24 and 0.79 ± 0.48, p < 0.001) and higher (closer to 1) correction index (0.94 ± 0.45 and 0.74 ± 0.55, p = 0.020) in FSAK compared with manual AK. Corneal and manifest astigmatism improved significantly in both groups, while BCVA and UCVA improved significantly in FSAK only.
Repeat AK rate was 32% (24 eyes) in manual AK and 4% (three eyes) in FSAK (p < 0.001). Overcorrection‐related re‐suturing rate was 0% in manual AK and 8% (six eyes) in FSAK (p = 0.037). There was one microperforation (1.3%) in FSAK, and there were no occurrences of graft dehiscence, infectious keratitis or graft rejection.
Conclusions
Both manual AK and FSAK were safe and effective in reducing postkeratoplasty astigmatism. FSAK had superior visual and keratometric outcomes compared with manual AK.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.