Sandor asked this question on Lasik flap healing:

Dear Dave,
Is it true that corneal flaps never heal completely after Intralasik? What is the chance of dislocation during the rest of the patients life?
Thank you in advance, Sandor

Sandor, it’s an important question. It is true that thicker (e.g. blade, keratome) flaps never fully heal. They can be surgically lifted many years after. However, thin flaps such as are created with femtosecond lasers (around 100-110 microns) appear to heal significantly more strongly.

The healing in the uppermost layers of the cornea is different from deeper down. Collagen fibres are more wavy and heal much better when cut with a thin flap. I have found a couple of patients where I have tried to lift femtosecond flaps, and they were fully bonded down and impossible to lift after a year post-op. This has never been the case with keratome blade cut flaps which I have always been able to lift, even many years later.

IntraLasik is just the brand name for flaps made with the Intralase American made femtosecond laser. Using the Swiss Ziemer laser it is called Z-LASIK.

The key question first is the depth at which a flap was cut. One of the major reasons why many clinics have invested in femtosecond lasers over the much cheaper keratomes (10x more expensive for a femtosecond) is being able to cut predictable accurate thin flaps, with their better healing.

If it was a thin flap, e.g from a femtosecond laser (Ziemer, Intralase, Visumax, Femtec), I expect the lifetime chance of dislocation will be zero.

Here is a recent question I was asked on whether LASIK is suitable for thin corneas:

“Dear David, I wrote a while ago to ask whether Z Lasik gave greater scope to those of us with thin corneas for having Lasik as opposed to Lasek or PRK. At the time, I didn’t know what my actual measurement was – I have since had my notes from my previous check and they read L 465, R 473. However, reading recent posts on your blog I see that you do not recommend any ‘flap cutting’ to anyone with a corneal thickness measurement of under 500. I suppose what I’m asking, is if that is completely set in stone? Does Z Lasik not allow you to consider previously borderline cases?“,

And another question on the same topic:

Hi Dave,
I have myopia of -6.5 and -2 for astigma. I have a corneal thickness of 490 micron. I went for 2 different consultations. One surgeon recommend that i should do PRK because he said that it is safer than iLasik (intralase) due to zero flap create. The other doctor recommended me to go with Intralase because he said that it is possible. I know that both procedures are safe. But i am just a bit concern in the long term. Also, what is the down side of having intralase over PRK or the other way around?

Average central corneal thickness is 530-540 microns. Many surgeons, myself included, don’t cut LASIK flaps in corneas less than 500 microns, although there are surgeons who will. In the first question, this person had very thin corneas (465 and 473 microns) and in my opinion should NOT have LASIK. In the second, the corneas are thin at 490 microns, but not excessively so.

It is true that being able to create very accurate LASIK flaps with the new femtosecond lasers (e.g. Ziemer, Intralase, Zeiss) leaves more tissue behind and so allowing larger treatments. More on this topic in my next post.

IMPORTANT NEWS for those people considering having LASIK laser eye surgery.

There appears to be a fundamental difference between LASIK flaps cut either with a blade or created with a laser. Laser created flaps mean a safer surgery as the results are more accurate, so fewer enhancements needed, and the eye is left stronger.

Making a replaceable flap is the first part of the LASIK procedure, just prior to reshaping the cornea to correct vision. Until recently (and still in many clinics) the flap was made by a physical cut with a very sharp razor blade contained within a precision device. However several clinics and the major three chain operators have invested in femtosecond lasers to create the corneal flap without the need for a blade.

This is known as blade-free LASIK, dual laser LASIK, Z-LASIK or IntraLASIK depending on which clinic you are talking to.

We know that thicker flaps cut with a blade do not fully heal and can be lifted up surgically even many years later. Traditional blade flaps are thicker and cut deeper into the cornea. However laser flaps are thinner and leave the eye stronger afterwards.

However a key difference highlighted by Professor John Marshall in London is that because these very thin laser flaps pass through near the surface of the cornea where the collagen is different from deeper down, they actually heal down and are not able to be lifted later on. This means the eye regains strength again with a laser flap, but not with a blade flap.

Newer blade machines have been introduced in 2008 and 2009 that cut thinner flaps to compete with the thin femtosecond laser flaps which should benefit from the better healing seen in sub-120 micron flaps

My recommendation to you when choosing a clinic is to be able to select to have a femtosecond laser procedure at a clinic that has that technology. They are more expensive than blade procedures (expect to pay around £300 more per eye) but well worth the likelihood of a long-term increase in safety.

THIS is a question I often get asked. It’s a very good question.

Preview post…

Some new research from Professor John Marshall has helped shed light on this key topic and is something that everyone who is thinking about LASIK laser eye surgery needs to know.

Check back next week for my post on this topic…