 |
The INTRALASE® FS laser makes LASIK
better.
The evidence can be found in clinical data that proves that utilizing
the IntraLase laser to create a flap in all types of LASIK delivers
predictably better visual outcomes versus hand-held microkeratomes.
Hand-held microkeratomes have standard deviations of mean flap
thickness two to three times greater than IntraLase and are unable
to produce the same high degree of uniformity and consistency.
Greater Safety
IntraLase surgeons believe that a more accurate flap creation
process allows for greater safety. This is proven in numerous
clinical studies that show a significant decrease in events that
adversely impact safety.
In a retrospective analysis of LASIK outcomes with the IntraLase
laser (106 eyes), the CB microkeratome (126 eyes), and the Hansatome
(143 eyes), Guy M. Kezirian, M.D., and Karl G. Stonecipher, M.D.,
showed that IntraLase demonstrated more predictable flap thickness,
better astigmatic neutrality and decreased epithelial injury than
the two popular mechanical keratomes.*
Better Outcomes
IntraLase surgeons believe that a better flap leads to better
LASIK outcomes. This is demonstrated in a prospective, randomized
study where patients had one eye treated with the IntraLase laser
and the fellow eye treated with the leading hand-held microkeratome.
Uncorrected visual acuity was statistically better with all types
of LASIK in the IntraLase treated eyes versus the microkeratome
treated eyes.**
 Just as
important, patients who had a preference preferred vision in their
IntraLase treated eye over the mechanical microkeratome treated
eye 3 to 1.**
Increased Assurance and More Patients
By utilizing a computer-guided laser that delivers micron-level
accuracy over 100 percent greater than a microkeratome,*** you
can give your patients the assurance they need that Step One of
LASIK eye surgery will be accurate, safe and a first step towards
getting the best LASIK result possible.
|
* |
Daniel S
Durrie, M.D.: Randomized prospective clinical study of LASIK:
IntraLase versus mechanical keratome. Subsets presented
at the Joint Meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology
& the International Society of Refractive Surgery, November
14, 2003, Anaheim, CA, and the Symposium of the American
Society of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, May 4, 2004,
San Diego, CA. |
|
** |
Kezirian
GM, Stonecipher KG. Comparison of the IntraLase femtosecond
laser and mechanical keratomes for laser in situ keratomileusis.
Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2004; 30:804-811.
|
|
*** |
Leaming
DV. Practice styles and preferences of ASCRS members—2003
survey. J Cat Refract Surg 2004; 30:892-900. |
|
**** |
Mahdavi
S: How IntraLase technology is impacting the refractive
practice. SM2 Consulting, Pleasanton, CA. April 2004. Data
on file, IntraLase Corp. |
Back to top...
|
|
|
In a retrospective analysis of
LASIK outcomes with the IntraLase laser (106 eyes), the CB microkeratome
(126 eyes), and the Hansatome (143 eyes), IntraLase demonstrated
more predictable flap thickness, better astigmatic neutrality
and decreased epithelial injury than the two popular mechanical
keratomes.**
In a 2003 ASCRS survey, a majority of the surgeons (52%) indicated
that the device they’d prefer is the INTRALASE® FS laser.**
Additional sources on laser precision and flap creation:
Manche E: IntraLase versus Hansatome microkeratome and
myopic LASIK. Presented at the Symposium of the American Society
of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, May 4, 2004, San Diego, CA.
Nordan et al. Femtosecond laser flap creation for laser in
situ keratomileusis: six-month follow-up of initial U.S. clinical
series. J Refract Surg 19:8-14.
Binder P. Flap dimensions created with the IntraLase pulsion
laser. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004;30:33-39.
Binder P. The femtosecond laser and the flap. Rev Refract Surg;
February 2003.
Manger CC. The IntraLase Advantage. Ophthalmology Management,
February 2004.
|
|
