The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Femtosecond laser versus mechanical keratome flaps in wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis: Prospective contralateral eye study
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) performed using the IntraLase femtosecond laser with the outcomes using the Hansatome mechanical microkeratome. SETTING: Private clinic, Overland Park, Kansas, USA. METHODS: In a prospective contralateral-eye study performed under institutional review board supervision, 51 consecutive patients (102 eyes) had bilateral wavefront-guided LASIK for myopia using the Alcon LADARVision laser. One eye of each patient was randomized to have the flap created with the IntraLase femtosecond laser and the other flap using a standard compression head Hansatome microkeratome. All other treatment parameters were the same. RESULTS: The IntraLase group had significantly better mean uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) at all intervals from 1 day to 3 months postoperatively. The mean spheroequivalent at 3 months was more myopic with the Hansatome (-0.34 diopter [D] +/- 0.28 [SD]) than with the IntraLase (-0.19 +/- 0.24 D) (P<.01). The mean residual astigmatism at 3 months was also significantly higher in the Hansatome group than in the IntraLase group (0.32 +/- 0.25 D and 0.17 +/- 0.20 D, respectively) (P<.01). The differences in UCVA persisted after spheroequivalent outcomes were controlled for but equilibrated when the analysis was modified to control for manifest postoperative astigmatism. Aberrometry showed significantly higher astigmatism and trefoil in the Hansatome group. Recovery of corneal sensation and epithelial integrity was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The statistically better UCVA and manifest refractive outcomes after LASIK with the IntraLase femtosecond laser may be the result of differences in postoperative astigmatism and trefoil. These findings are consistent with previous findings of better astigmatic outcomes with the IntraLase laser and may have clinical significance for wavefront-guided treatments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Proper Method for Calculating Average Visual Acuity
Holladay, J. T. (1997) · Journal of Refractive Surgery · doi:10.3928/1081-597x-19970701-16 · Cited by 1,090
Kezirian, G. M., & Stonecipher, K. G. (2004) · Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2003.10.026 · Cited by 405
Self-citationApplegate, R. A., Sarver, E. J., & Khemsara, V. (2002) · Journal of Refractive Surgery · doi:10.3928/1081-597x-20020901-12 · Cited by 200
Recent advances in representation of monochromatic aberrations of human eyes
Atchison, D. A. (2004) · Clinical and Experimental Optometry · doi:10.1111/j.1444-0938.2004.tb03166.x · Cited by 89
Cited by
Comparison of different excimer laser ablation frequencies (50, 200, and 500 Hz)
Winkler von Mohrenfels, C., Khoramnia, R., & Lohmann, C.-P. (2009) · Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology · doi:10.1007/s00417-009-1102-x · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Durrie, D. S., & Kezirian, G. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
- Published
- 2005-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 120-126
- ISSN
- 0146-2776 (ISSN-L)
- 0886-3350
- OpenAlex
- W2205178949
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 20.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Femtosecond laser versus mechanical keratome flaps in wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis: Prospective contralateral eye study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.09.046
- The paper
- Durrie, D. S., & Kezirian, G. M. (2005). Femtosecond laser versus mechanical keratome flaps in wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis: Prospective contralateral eye study. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.09.046
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
