Open access peer-reviewed chapter

When LASIK Goes Wrong or LASIK Complications Dilemmas

Written By

Fanka Gilevska, Maja Bohač, Smiljka Popović Suić and Mateja Jagić

Submitted: 09 April 2022 Reviewed: 07 September 2022 Published: 11 October 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.107924

From the Edited Volume

Refractive Surgery - Types of Procedures, Risks, and Benefits

Edited by Maja Bohač and Mateja Jagić

Chapter metrics overview

95 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) is one of the most commonly performed refractive surgical procedures. During the last two decades, surgical procedure has evolved, but still, there are several intraoperative and postoperative complications possible. Every young LASIK surgeon spends most of the reading time on LASIK complications. They are not frequent, but you have to know precisely what to do when they happen. This chapter should be a guide, based on literature and experience, on how to deal with intraoperative, early postoperative, and late postoperative complications. This chapter will include managing irregular flaps, buttonholes, and free flaps. The treatment scheme for DLK, epithelial ingrowth, and PISK, and when is the time for flap re-lifting. How frequent should be patients’ visits not to miss the complication on time? When is the right time for LASIK reoperation? Post LASIK corneal ectasia and how to perform cross-linking over LASIK. Young surgeons need precise guidelines, not just theoretical treatment options to achieve optimal visual outcomes after LASIK procedure.


  • complication
  • DLK
  • PISK
  • epithelial ingrowth
  • ectasia

1. Introduction

Refractive surgery has made great strides over the last two decades. Technological advances have not only been made at the level of keratorefractive surgery, but also in cataract surgery-the introduction of femtosecond lasers, small incision surgery, and presbyopia-correcting IOLs. LASIK is currently the most commonly performed surgical procedure in refractive surgery. Nowadays, postoperative visual acuity less than 20/20 after refractive surgery has become unacceptable given the growing patients’ demands for perfect vision and the fact that the vast majority of patients have 20/20 vision achieved with spectacle or contact lens correction preoperatively. Complications in keratorefractive surgery are extremely rare, and serious side effects occur in less than 0.4% of cases. This chapter will present an overview of all known complications of the LASIK keratorefractive procedure with a recommendation for their management.


2. LASIK complications

2.1 Preoperative complications

2.1.1 Anesthesia

Corneal refractive procedures are performed with topical anesthetic drops (0.5% propacaine, 0.5% tetracaine, and 0.4% oxybuprocaine). Preoperative cleaning of the operative region consists of application of Iodine 5% in the conjunctival fornices for 15 seconds. Both the anesthetic and the iodine may cause epithelial weakening, punctate erosions, or irregular corneal surface. (238) Care about the amount of anesthetic and Iodine used prior to the procedure is essential for the protection of the epithelium. Use of viscous artificial tears during the procedure may interfere with the work of microkeratome and should be avoided [1].

2.1.2 Eyelashes, foil, speculum

Securing the operative surface with transparent adhesive foil over the eyelashes, selection of the appropriate speculum providing enough space for the microkeratome, and choice of the proper microkeratome for the given eye anatomy is very important in creating regular flaps [1].

2.1.3 Conjunctiva

Adequate examination of the whole anterior segment, conjunctiva, limbal region, and fornices is very important precondition for successful surgery. Irregularities in the limbal region, scleral elevations, nevus, and tumor prominence in the region of conjunctiva, limbus, or fornices may cause irregular vacuum suction, pseudosuction, and potential vacuum loss which may result in irregular flap due to improper lamellar incision [1].

2.2 Intraoperative complications

2.2.1 Microkeratome-related complications

Automated microkeratome creates a precise cut on the cornea which represents the flap. It consists of an oscillation blade attached to a head and both work with independent motors (one for the oscillation of the blade, other for the movement forward and backward). The surgeon chooses adequate rings for the different diameters and steepness of the cornea, the thickness of the flap (from 90 to 120 microns), hinge position, and its diameter [2]. Incomplete or irregular corneal flap

The incidence of incomplete flap is 0.3−1.2% [3]. Incomplete flap occurs when the microkeratome is stopped before the planned hinge position. Stopping of microkeratome most often occurs due to collisions with eyelids and eyelashes, speculum and/or foil, and due to suction (vacuum) loss during passage. The cause can also be of a mechanical nature-a defect in the dissection head (knife) or in the motor unit of the microkeratome [1, 4, 5]. Irregular flaps often result in lack of enough space for laser ablation, also they carry the risk of profound epithelial ingrowth which can result in corneal scarring in the visual axis or even flap melting.

What shall we do?

Every irregular flap has its own irregular bed underneath. If we leave the flap untouched, smooth healing will result and best corrected visual acuity achieved. If we ablate the bed under the irregular flap, then we create an inadequate match for the flap, and it can result in higher order aberrations and loss of best corrected visual acuity. Flap which has only peripheral irregularities, with a diameter larger than intended ablation area (OZ), procedure can be continued with careful flap reposition, and BSCL is case with epithelial defects.

In a highly irregular and thin flap (usually created by a lamellar cut at or above the Bowman’s layer) with an inadequate stromal bed, Bowman membrane remains in the central zone or larger in diameter, the procedure is aborted, and re-treatment is postponed for 3–6 months with setting larger and deeper flap cut then initial [1, 4]. When Bowman membrane remains out of the central zone and is small in diameter, treatment can be continued with additional antimetabolite application (Mytomycine C) for 15 s to prevent the epithelial ingrowth. Surface procedures (PRK) after LASIK can increase the risk for corneal haze formation, but in cases where irregular flap is small, and hinge is positioned in ablation area (OZ), LASIK procedure needs to be aborted and surface ablation is preferred retreatment procedure within 3 months [3]. Perforated (buttonhole) flap

The incidence of perforated flap (buttonhole) is 0.1−0.6%, and for too thin flap 0.1−0.4% [6]. Flap perforation occurs when the blade of the microkeratome enters the corneal surface-Bowman membrane and epithelium during the passage, usually in the central part of the flap (Figure 1). Too thin flaps occur when the blade of the dissection head does not penetrate deep enough into the cornea but stays close to the surface. Perforated flaps are more common in steep corneas (>46.0 D), and inadequately achieved vacuum that causes poor adhesion of the cornea and microkeratome blade, also in flat and small corneas where corneal suction puts cutting plane below the blade [7, 8]. It can also be mechanical in nature due to uneven cutting speed in manual microkeratome, blunt blades, weak blade oscillations, and due to mechanical damage to the blade of the microkeratome dissection head. Perforated flaps are one with the worst visual outcome compared to other intraoperative complications, usually resulting in irregular astigmatism and epithelial ingrowth [1, 7, 8].

Figure 1.

Intraoperative finding in case of buttonhole flap. Visible central area of Bowmann membrane remains after the flap lift.

What shall we do?

When procedure results in a perforated flap, procedure is aborted, and retreatment is planned after minimum of 3 months, preferably surface ablation (Figure 2). In case of LASIK retreatment, a flap with larger diameter and greater thickness should be set [3, 6, 9].

Figure 2.

Post operative finding after reponed flap. In this case procedure was aborted - flap was reposition. Free flap (free cap)

The incidence of free flaps is 0.1−1.0%. The size of the flap depends on the volume of the cornea protruding above the vacuum ring. In the case of protrusion of a small amount of tissue, a free flap is formed. Free flaps are more common in flat corneas with keratometric values <41.0 D, in an insufficient vacuum, when selecting a too small vacuum ring, or in inadequately adjusted microkeratome stoppers [1].

What shall we do?

Adequate cap repositioning on the stromal bed, air dried for at least 3−4 minutes and bandage contact lens placed over for the next few days is crucial for the best visual outcomes. The patient should stay in hospital and be rechecked within 1−2 hours for flap position and its adherence to stromal bed. Dislodging or flap folds that may result from strong eyelid pressure should be treated immediately [1]. In case of excessively edematous flap that tends to dislocate, 10-0 nylon sutures should be used [4]. In case of intraoperative flap loss, procedure is aborted, and after epithelization, refractive error (usually hyperopic shift) can be managed with contact lens or flap reconstruction [10]. Corneal perforation

Penetration into the anterior chamber, that is, entry into the anterior chamber with full corneal thickness, may occur during lamellar dissection or even excimer laser photoablation. Perforations can range from simple corneal perforations to perforations with iris and lens damage with or without loss of vitreous. Perforation can occur on extremely thin corneas, in old corneal scars, ulcers, or after previous refractive surgery [1, 11]. Cases with corneal perforation usually have poor visual outcomes due to scar formation and recurrent epithelial ingrowth in perforated plane [12].

What shall we do?

If corneal perforation occurs during flap creation, suction should be immediately stopped. Larger perforation requires surgical repair with suturing under sterile conditions, while small perforations can be managed by flap repositioning and BSCL. Decentered flap

Thin and irregularly decentered flaps can occur during flap formation with both microkeratome or femtosecond laser. The causes are multifactorial and include poor positioning (centering) of the vacuum ring, too low achieved vacuum on the cornea, poor corneal lubrication, poor quality of the blade, pre-existing corneal pathology or microkeratome malfunction [13].

What shall we do?

Since there is likely an unexpected visual outcome after performing centered ablation in a case of decentered flap, it is advised to abort the procedure.

2.2.2 Femtosecond-related complications

The femtosecond laser is a solid-state Nd: Glass laser that works near the infrared spectrum at a wavelength of 1053 nm and produces ultrashort pulses lasting 10−15 s. The laser is based on the principle of nonlinear absorption (corneal tissue is transparent to infrared laser radiation of moderate intensity and without absorption) and the principle of photoionization (laser-induced optical break), which leads to photodisruption. Small tissue volumes are vaporized with the formation of cavitation gas bubbles that gradually disperse into the surrounding tissue and consist of carbon dioxide and water [14, 15, 16]. Flap formation is today the most common application of femtosecond lasers, where during clinical practice the superiority of femtosecond lasers over mechanical microkeratomes is slowly indicated in terms of reducing the incidence of intraoperative complications and the ability to personalize switch parameters (diameter, thickness, lateral incision, and hinge) [15, 16]. Opaque bubble layer (OBL)

The formation of cavitation bubbles in the lamella between the flap and the stroma, which are directed to the peripheral specially designed pockets, is a standard process of flap formation. In the case of their passage into the deeper stromal layers, or even into the anterior chamber, their confluence occurs, and an opaque layer is formed which interferes with the excimer laser eye tracking system and takes up to several hours to resorb. The penetration of the bubbles into the anterior chamber occurs due to the migration of cavitation bubbles through the 14 piscleral, schlemm canal, and trabecular meshwork into the anterior chamber [17]. Risk factors are thick cornea, small flap diameter, hard docking technique, and low laser frequency or energy [18, 19]. This complication has become very rare since the reduced vacuum pressure on the eye, reduced energy, and increased speed of femtosecond lasers [1720, 21, 22]. Higher order aberration (HOA) induction, especially trefoil, was reported in cases with OBL [23, 24].

What shall we do?

The presence of OBL suggests flap adhesion so it is advised to perform flap dissection carefully. In case of OBL persistence after flap lift, it will temporarily preclude pupillary tracking for excimer laser ablation. Therefore, waiting for a few minutes and allowing it to disappear is advised. When smaller cavitation bubbles appear in AC, excimer laser treatment can be performed by disabling automatic pupil tracking and proceeding the treatment with manual tracking. Prophylaxis: Setting a larger flap diameter flap and preferring the soft docking technique can reduce the risk of OBL occurrence [18, 19]. Vertical gas breakthrough (VBG)

Vertical gas breakthrough (VGB) occurs in the presence of corneal scar or abnormality in the Bowman’s layer when the gas dissects vertically towards the stroma or epithelium [25]. When cavitation bubbles penetrate the corneal subepithelial space incomplete flaps or even buttonhole flaps may form while breaching the epithelial layer results in epithelial defect. Bubbles can also penetrate the space between the cornea and the applanation lens, preventing laser-treating the cornea. This leads to the formation of tissue bridges and makes it difficult or sometimes impossible to separate the flap from the adjacent stroma. Incidence of VBG is 0.03−0.13% according to the literature [25, 26].

What shall we do?

When the VGB appears, the femtosecond laser treatment should be continued to avoid a partial flap. After assessing the position of the VGB within the flap, further actions are considered: when VGB is affecting the visual axis or ahead of the advancing edge of the flap, the flap should not be lifted, and surgery should be aborted [26].

2.2.3 Photoablation-related (excimer laser ablation related) complications Decentered ablation

Centered (over the pupil zone) ablation is crucial for optimal visual outcome, so every deviation in ablation position compromises the visual outcome [4]. Decentration of the ablation zone can occur due to the movement of the laser beam before the excimer laser ablation itself and due to the eye movement during the excimer laser ablation [27].

Decentration is more common in the correction of larger refractive errors (longer excimer laser ablation allows more eye movements), and in patients with poor uncorrected visual acuity who fix the target point even worse due to additional image blur due to corneal dehydration.

During surgery, the decentralized ablation zone may go unnoticed and result in irregular astigmatism and consequent poor visual acuity, dysphotopsia (glare, halo), and monocular diplopia. Usually, it can be presented as asymmetric corneal contour in topography (one side steepening, other side flattening) (Figure 3). Decentration can be graded as mild (0−0.5 mm), moderate (0.5−1.0 mm) and severe (>1.0 mm). The magnitude of symptomatic decentration and consequent vision problems varies from patient to patient [1, 27, 28].

Figure 3.

Decentered ablation after myopic excimer profile.

What shall we do?

When highly decentered ablation is noticed, with large amount of HOA induction, temporarily miotics can reduce dysphotopsia. After 3 months, customized ablation profiles should be used for retreatment: wavefront- or topo-guided PRK or LASIK procedure [29]. Central island

Central islands are diagnosed by corneal topography and are defined as central steep areas of unablated cornea within the treatment zone, defined by their size and keratometric power (>2 mm and > 3D) (Figure 4). According to the literature, central island can be considered in every steep corneal zone that affects visual acuity and induces visual disturbances [4, 30]. Central islands are extremely rare in flying spot lasers and can be caused by excimer laser factors (gas dynamics, acoustic corneal shock waves made by laser beams, temporal degradation of laser optics), factors affecting uniform excimer laser delivery like fluid accumulation in the central corneal zone (uneven corneal hydration), and by corneal healing [31]. Central islands cause irregular astigmatism, dysphotopsia (halo, glare, ghost images), loss of best corrected visual acuity, decrease in contrast sensitivity, and monocular diplopia [1, 32].

Figure 4.

Central island in patient with buttonhole flap.

What shall we do?

It is advised to wait for at least 6 months for stabilization of corneal topography and refractive status since vast majority of central island cases regress spontaneously (up to 80%). If there is a retreatment procedure required, wavefront- or topo-guided ablation profile needs to be planned, since irregular and complex corneal topography [33]. In cases of extremely irregular topography and risk of ending with questionable results of retreatment, rigid-gas permeable lenses can be used for correction.

2.2.4 General introperative complications Epithelial defect

Epithelial defects are usually caused by the passage of microkeratome over the dry corneal surface or over the epithelium loosened by excessive use of anesthetic drops prior to surgery. Also, a higher risk occurs in patients with history of recurrent erosions, epithelial basement membrane dystrophy (EBDM), drying of the flap, and iatrogenic trauma with surgical instruments [34, 35]. Epithelial defect can be accompanied by stromal oedema and inadequate flap adherence, which increases the risk of inflammatory response as DLK, even epithelial ingrowth [36].

What shall we do?

In case of smaller epithelial defects, frequent use of artificial tears, preferably conservative-free postoperatively is recommended with higher dose of topical corticosteroids in the next few postoperative days, primarily to prevent development of DLK. For larger defects (3 or more mm) bandage soft contact lens needs to be applied to ensure smooth epithelial healing. Interface debris

Interlamellar contamination (debris) may consist of connective and skin epithelial cells, Meibomian gland secretions, talc from the gloves, sponge fibers, metallic particles from microkeratome, and eyelash [4] (Figure 5). Interface debris should be carefully differentiated from an infectious or inflammatory reaction. However, impurities can support infectious or sterile inflammation of the cornea and cause mechanical disturbances in vision when placed on the visual axis [1, 37].

Figure 5.

Interface debris visible at 1st postoperative day.

What should we do?

In most cases, debris does not induce inflammation since it is biodegradable, but it should be observed. However, if there is any suspicion of an inflammatory reaction or large amount of debris covering the visual axis, causing significant visual disturbances, it should be managed with flap lift and thorough irrigation [38].

2.3 Postoperative complications

2.3.1 Early postoperative complications Flap striae

Flap striae occur in 0.03−3.5%, according to the literature [39] and are usually observed the next day after the surgery at the slit-lamp examination, best in retroillumination or with fluorescein staining at cobalt-blue light (Figure 6). In cases where flap is edematous, epithelial microstriae can present within 7 days postoperatively. Striae can be classified as micro- and macrostriae. Microstriae are irregularities in epithelial layer, where macrostriae result as full-thickness flap-folds. AT higher risk are cases with high refractive error (“tenting” effect due to the flap and stromal bed contour mismatch), misalignment during repositioning, excessive manipulation of the flap during surgery, and flap contracture [3, 4, 40].

Figure 6.

Vertical flap striae at 1st postoperative day without flap dislocation.

What shall we do?

Flap striae involving visual axis (inducing irregular astigmatism and optical aberrations) should be treated. When microstriae are presented early after the surgery, gentle stroking in a perpendicular way (flap sliding technique) with wet surgical sponge is sufficient [41]. Macrostriae must be managed with flap re-lift, stroking with surgical sponge on both stromal and epithelial side of the flap, and then careful flap repositioning. Fixed striae and flap-folds often present with epithelial hyperplasia, therefore epithelium and stromal bed debridement are necessary along with flap lift, repositioning, and stroking. Flap dislocation

Dislocation of the flap most commonly occurs in the first 24 hours after surgery before epithelial healing of the lamellar incision occurs (Figure 7). However, dislocations are possible several months after the procedure, usually after ocular trauma (Figure 8). Flap dislocation is considered an emergency and should be treated immediately to prevent folds and epithelial ingrowth. Patients present with sudden onset blurred vision, often associated with pain in the early postoperative period, the most common cause is mechanical due to lid squeezing, forceful blinking, and rubbing of eyes. Larger diameter flaps, thinner, and those with a small hinge are more susceptible to movement. In some cases, after repositioning the flap, DLK, interface haze, or epithelial ingrowth can occur [1, 42, 43].

Figure 7.

Dislodged flap due with associated vertical striae due to eye rubbing at 1st postoperative day.

Figure 8.

Late flap dislocation 3 months after LASIK procedure due to blunt eye trauma. Patient presented 2 hours after the trauma occurred.

What shall we do?

Dislodged flap needs to be managed with flap lift, debridement of stromal bed and stromal side of the flap for possible epithelium (preventing ingrowth), interface irrigation, and flap repositioning. Careful flap handling, soft stroking, and meticulous edge drying are of great importance. BSCL is often applied, and patient is rechecked after half an hour to confirm the flap position and edge adherence [35, 44]. Residual refractive error (under- or overcorrection)

Residual refractive error has been reported in up to 50% of LASIK cases [45]. Hypocorrection is the most common complication after primary LASIK and is usually diagnosed within the first few weeks after surgery. Hypercorrections are more common after repeated procedures and in elderly patients due to slightly dehydrated cornea (>50 years). Hypo- and hypercorrections are associated with excimer laser ablation algorithm, inaccurate nomograms, age, height of refractive error [45, 46, 47, 48], and even environmental factors can affect the amount of tissue ablation depth (temperature, humidity, and atmospheric pressure) [49]. Additionally, cyclotorsion from erect to supine position and poor centration of eye during laser ablation can cause postoperative astigmatism [50].

What shall we do?

After confirmed refractive and topography stabilization, re-lift with LASIK or PRK enhancement can be done. There is a slight risk of epithelial defects postoperatively and epithelial ingrowth in case of flap re-lift [45, 51]. Diffuse lamellar keratitis (DLK)

Diffuse lamellar keratitis (DLK) is a diffuse sterile inflammation of the lamella between the flap and the stroma (interface). It has been reported in 0.13% to 18.9% of cases [52, 53]. Inflammation may occur within 24 hours or be delayed for several days after the procedure. The course of inflammation is variable, it is possible to gradually reduce, increase or persist the inflammation. Etiological DLK is an allergic or toxic reaction caused by debris left in the lamellae—tears, mucus, corneal epithelial cells, connective tissue or skin, Meibomian gland secretion, glove powder, metal particles or wax from knives, leukocytes or blood from the pannus. An immune response to a temperature-resistant toxin from a sterilizer is also possible [36, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59].

Another etiology of DLK is related to the use of femtosecond lasers and photodisruption caused by microscopic tissue injury enhanced by inflammatory mediators from the surface of the eye. DLK was much more common in older models of femtosecond high-energy lasers. Today, only mild transient lamellar keratitis is seen on the periphery of the flap associated with slightly higher energies required for the formation of lateral incisions [36, 58, 59].

Symptoms include discomfort, mild to moderate pain, foreign body sensation, tearing, and light-scattering, A typical lamellar infiltrate is composed of white granular opacities limited to the lamella, without epithelial defects and reactions in the anterior chamber, while conjunctival injection can be present. DLK is divided into four stages or degrees by Linebarger et al. (I degree mild, IV degree melting of the flap) for the purpose of appropriate treatment in a timely manner and prognosis (Figures 9 and 10) [1, 60].

Figure 9.

DLK at grade II, inflammatory reaction visible throughout complete interface, without signs of melting.

Figure 10.

DLK in advanced grade, visible inflammatory reaction forming characteristic shifting sands phenomenon “sands of Sahara”.

What shall we do?

When presented at grade 1 or 2, an intensive topical steroid is necessary and recheck within next 24−48 hours is crucial for early identification of cases progressing to grade 3. Early flap lift and irrigation of interface with intensive topical steroids in grade 3 should reduce the risk of progression to stage 4. There are some recommendations for introducing peroral Doxycycline in addition to standard treatment regime for advanced grades. Even though, usually there is no major benefit of any intervention after progression to grade 4 [60]. Central toxic keratopathy (CTK)

CTK is a rare acute, non-inflammatory central corneal opacification that occurs within days of uncomplicated LASIK or PRK. Incidence is reported in 0.02%−0.016% of cases [61, 62], and the etiology is unknown, but enzymatic degradation of keratocytes is suspected. Activated keratocytes without inflammatory cells with initial loss of stromal keratocytes and subsequent gradual repopulation were found by confocal microscopy. CTK causes central corneal haze, (Figure 11), thinning of corneal stroma, and flattening of the anterior corneal surface, mostly without affecting the posterior surface. It is important to differentiate it diagnostically from stage IV DLK. Unlike DLK, CTK develops acute within 3−9 days postoperatively as central opacification, rarely associated with conjunctival hyperemia, or ciliary flush.

Figure 11.

Central toxic keratopathy in patient presented 5 days after LASIK procedure. Visible centralized opacification that extends anteriorly or posteriorly from the interface.

What shall we do?

Since CTK is a non-inflammatory condition, steroids are not indicated, thus they may hamper the healing process. Usually, there is spontaneous recovery without specific therapy needed. Recovery phase takes up to 18 months, where slight central opacification can remain, but corneal thickness increases and hyperopic shift decreases [61, 63, 64, 65, 66]. Pressure-induced stromal keratitis

PISK, also known as interface fluid syndrome [67] is a relatively rapid response to corticosteroids that presents with elevated intraocular pressure and fluid accumulation in the lamella between the flap and the adjacent corneal stroma. The amount of fluid varies and can be very small and clinically present as diffuse stroma opacity or large, clinically clearly separating the flap from the adjacent stroma. PISK is often misdiagnosed with DLK, bud the main difference is occurrence at least 5−7 days postoperatively, with high IOP and poor response to corticosteroids, au contraire. Hence, it is extremely important to differentiate it diagnostically from DLK in order to discontinue corticosteroid therapy. The values of intraocular pressure due to fluid are centrally falsely low, while peripheral measurements show somewhat more accurate results [63, 68].

What shall we do?

Management includes cessation of corticosteroid therapy and introduction of anti-glaucoma therapy for avoiding glaucomatous optic nerve damage [69, 70]. Infectious keratitis

Infectious keratitis is a rare but potentially devastating and sight-threatening complication after LASIK. It is rare, with 0.034−0.2% cases with decreased incidence over the years [71, 72]. It can be caused by viruses (Adenoviruses, Herpes simplex virus), bacteria (Staphylococcus, Pseudomonas), atypical mycobacteria, fungi, and parasites (Acanthamoeba). Infectious keratitis is divided into early (within the first two postoperative weeks) and late (occurs 2–3 months after surgery). Early infectious keratitis is caused by staphylococci and streptococci (most often methicillin-resistant staphylococci), and late atypical mycobacteria and fungi. The risk of infection is blepharitis, dry eye, intraoperative epithelial defects, intraoperative contamination, prolonged epithelialization after surgery, and certain professions (medical professionals). Symptoms may include pain, lightheadedness, tearing, decreased visual acuity, image duplication, shadows, and haloes. Examination on a biomicroscope may show ciliary injection, epithelial defects, anterior chamber reaction, and hypopion. Fungal keratitis, although significantly rarer than bacterial, should be considered in the differential diagnosis [1, 73, 74, 75, 76].

What shall we do?

When it comes to infectious keratitis, prophylaxis is preferred over treatment. Proper use of sterile gloves, caps, instruments, and betadine wash of eyelids prior to the surgery will reduce the risk of infection. In observed infectious keratitis, management includes flap lift, scraping of bed, and irrigation of bed with antibiotics. In early onset, the best choice is vancomycin and amikacin in late-onset. Cessation of corticosteroids is obligatory, and topical fourth-generation fluoroquinolone and vancomycin (early onset) or amikacin with vancomycin 5% or topical clarithromycin and 4th generation fluoroquinolone for late-onset [72]. After culture isolation and the accompanying sensitivity antibiogram, local antibiotic therapy is revised. Sometimes, in case of severe infection, flap amputation is needed, both for therapeutic and diagnostic reasons [73]. Stromal melting or flap melting

Stromal melting is mostly unilateral and occurs 2−5 weeks after LASIK. It most commonly occurs after epithelial defects, thin and/or irregular flaps, perforated flaps, epithelial ingrowth, and deep lamellar keratitis. It may also be associated with systemic immune diseases such as thyroiditis, systemic lupus, Sjögren’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, eczema, and erythema. The disease is usually self-limiting for 21–45 days and results in variable intensity of opacification (leukemia) and regular or incorrect astigmatism. Melting of the flap is very likely caused by apoptosis induced by an implanted layer of epithelial cells caused by epithelial ingrowth. Epithelial ingrowth, as well as possible melting of the flap edge, is more common in reoperations, especially in hyperopic eyes, than in primary operations [77, 78, 79]. Transient photosensitivity

It is characterized by light-headedness and mild pain with normal visual acuity but without inflammation. It occurs a few days after the procedure and can last for several weeks. The complication is related to the high energy and low frequency of mostly older generations of femtosecond lasers, and the hypothetical cause is the stimulation of keratocytes and corneal nerves by the shock waves of the femtosecond laser [80].

2.3.2 Late postoperative complications Refractive regression

Regression is the return of diopters in the direction of primary refractive error documented in several arrivals 3–6 months after LASIK. Regression is more common after hyperopic LASIK, observed in nearly 30% of hyperopes and 5.5–27.7% of myopes [81]. Regression after LASIK is associated with an increase in corneal thickness and curvature. Potential mechanisms involved in regression include nucleus sclerosis, stromal synthesis and remodeling (wound healing), compensatory epithelial hyperplasia, decreased flap thickness, an anterior shift of cornea, and iatrogenic keratectasia [82].

What shall we do?

After confirmed refractive stability, within 3–4 months, enhancement with LASIK re-lift, PRK, or even LASEK can be advised. Epithelial ingrowth

Epithelial ingrowth at the terminal periphery of the flap is normal flap healing. Clinically significant epithelial ingrowth occurs when a fistula develops under the flap, which allows epithelial cells to migrate in the lamella between the flap and the stroma and causes opacification. It occurs in 0−3.9% of cases undergoing primary treatment and 10−20% in re-treatment cases [83]. In primary uncomplicated LASIK, a higher incidence of epithelial ingrowth was observed in the treatment of hyperopia, in microkeratome compared to femtosecond lasers, LASIK after radial keratotomy, intraoperative epithelial defects, and in the elderly. After repeated procedures and application of therapeutic soft contact lenses, an increased incidence of epithelial ingrowth was observed, as well as in operations performed three or more years after primary LASIK. Isolated epithelial islets rarely cause problems (Figure 12). However, if the ingrowth is connected to the superficial epithelium and continues to grow and reach the visual axis, it can cause distortion of the flap surface and the development of irregular astigmatism (Figure 13). Symptoms of epithelial ingrowth include lightheadedness, glare, decreased visual acuity, and foreign body sensation. Theoretically, there are several ways in which epithelial cells can get into the lamella: by mechanical indentation on the microkeratome blade or with water during irrigation after photoablation, and by ingrowth of cells derived from peripheral epithelium.

Figure 12.

Epithelial cell collection under the flap.

Figure 13.

Epithelial ingrowth from flap margin advancing to the central part of the interface.

Biomicroscopically, epithelial ingrowth is shown with epithelial beads in the lamella formed by dividing epithelial cells, fluorescein accumulation at the edges of the flap or even below the flap, fibrotic demarcation line at the leading edge of epithelial ingrowth, keratolysis, or melting of the flap edge [63, 84, 85, 86, 87]. Patients usually present with foreign body sensation and dysphotopsia (glare) in the early stages and decreased visual acuity in later stages.

What shall we do?

In the initial stages (grade 1) observation is recommended, but for advanced stages, flap lift, thorough mechanical debridement of epithelial cells with profound wash of stromal bed, and Mitomycine C 0.02% application for preventing ingrowth recurrence (observed in one-third of cases) [83]. Some literature advise low energy (0.6 mJ) Nd-YAG laser for treating ingrowth [83, 88]. Induced and iatrogenic keratectasia

Iatrogenic keratectasia is a serious complication seen in 0.033−0.6% cases [4, 89] associated with a weakening of the mechanical strength of the cornea. It is clinically presented by progressive weakening of uncorrected visual acuity and increase in myopia, and by progressive increase in corneal curvature visible on corneal topography (Figure 14). Iatrogenic keratectasia occurs several weeks to several years after the procedure. The flap does not contribute to the biomechanical strength of the cornea, and all biomechanical stress is tolerated by untreated deeper parts of the cornea. Risk factors include irregular corneal topography, thin central corneal thickness (<450 μm), low residual corneal thickness (<250 μm), young age, and high spherical refractive error equivalent [90, 91, 92].

Figure 14.

Iatrogenic corneal ectasia 1 year after LASIK procedure.

What shall we do?

In the case of keratectasia, prophylaxis as careful and detailed screening of corneal topography is of most importance. When progressive ectasia is observed, collagen Cross-linking is performed. Additionally, rigid gas-permeable CL or intracorneal ring segments can restore vision. For advanced cases, anterior lamellar keratoplasty or event perforative keratoplasty is required [89, 93]. Dry eye

Corneal refractive surgery can induce or even worsen dry eye symptoms (Figure 15). Dry eye syndrome causes discomfort, fluctuations in vision quality, delayed healing and epithelial damage, and can lead to regression of refractive error and reduced vision quality. In most patients, the symptoms are mild and do not cause interference, and pass within 6 months when the healing period ends. According to the literature and clinical practice, dry eye is observed in more than 90% of cases [94]. The main risk factors for chronic dry eye after surgery are preoperative dry eye and female sex [95, 96, 97, 98]. Symptoms of dry eye are thought to be caused by denervation and cutting of nerve fibers during flap formation, excimer laser removal of corneal tissue, and corneal reshaping. Denervation causes a decrease in corneal sensitivity and interrupts the flow of information from the cornea to the lacrimal system. Lack of corneal sensitivity can lead to a decrease in the number of blinks, and to a lack of information about the need to produce a larger amount and/or a specific tear component. Improvement in corneal sensation and DED by 3−6 months occur in most cases, but corneal innervation can be delayed by 2−3 years [99].

Figure 15.

Severe dry eye 1 month after LASIK procedure.

What shall we do?

The choice of patients and the treatment of dry eye symptoms before the procedure are extremely important. Standard therapy includes artificial tears for prolonged period of 6 months or longer, and topical corticosteroids (currently most commonly used is low dose hydrocortisone) [100]. In severe cases of DED, topical cyclosporine drops and Punctal Plug instillation for occluding tear punctum. Night vision disturbances

The main cause of decreased vision quality and glare symptoms is an increase in spherical aberration in the centrally flattened cornea. Symptoms worsen at night due to the physiological dilation of the pupil and the entry of light rays through the untreated periphery. Glare can also cause decentralized ablations, too small optical zones, newly formed lens blurring, and induced astigmatism. Patients with scotopic pupils larger than 7.5 mm and high myopic corrections are most often affected. Fortunately, most symptoms resolve over time without treatment due to cortical adaptation [101, 102, 103, 104].


3. Conclusions

It is of the greatest interest for every refractive surgeon to perform safe surgery and successfully treat possible complications. Therefore, meticulous knowledge of intraoperative and postoperative complications will ensure timely and appropriate preventive measures to reduce the occurrence of complications, their early detection, and appropriate management in order to achieve optimal results.


Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 1. Farah SG, Ghanem RC, Azar DT. LASIK complications and their management. In: Azar DT, editor. Refractive Surgery. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Inc; 2007. pp. 195-221. DOI:10.1016/B978-0-323-03599-6.50076-6
  2. 2. Vayr F, Chastang P, Hoang-Xuan T. Laser and mechanical microkeratomes. In: Azar DT, editor. Refractive Surgery. 2nd. ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Inc; 2007. pp. 147-155. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-323-03599-6.50072-9
  3. 3. Moshirfar M, Gardiner JP, Schliesser JA, et al. Laser in situ keratomileusis flap complications using mechanical microkeratome versus femtosecond laser: Retrospective comparison. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2010;36(11):1925-1933. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.05.027
  4. 4. Melki SA, Azar DT. LASIK complications: Etiology, management, and prevention. Survey of Ophthalmology. 2001;46(2):95-116. DOI: 10.1016/s0039-6257(01)00254-5
  5. 5. Rao SK, Padmanabhan P, Sitalakshmi G, Rajagopal R. Partial flap during laser in-situ keratomileusis: Pathogenesis and timing of retreatment. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2000;48(3):209-212
  6. 6. Jain V, Mhatre K, Shome D. Flap buttonhole in thin-flap laser in situ keratomileusis: Case series and review. Cornea. 2010;29(6):655-658. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181c377d5
  7. 7. Leung AT, Rao SK, Cheng AC, Yu EW, Fan DS, Lam DS. Pathogenesis and management of laser in situ keratomileusis flap buttonhole. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2000;26(3):358-362. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(99)00414-9
  8. 8. Tham VM, Maloney RK. Microkeratome complications of laser in situ keratomileusis. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(5):920-924. DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00004-x
  9. 9. Al-Mezaine HS, Al-Amro SA, Al-Obeidan S. Incidence, management, and visual outcomes of buttonholed laser in situ keratomileusis flaps. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2009;35(5):839-845. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.01.013
  10. 10. Geggel HS. Treatment of lost flaps and slipped flaps. International Ophthalmology Clinics. 2008;48(1):65-71. DOI: 10.1097/IIO.0b013e31815eb96d244
  11. 11. Joo CK, Kim TG. Corneal perforation during laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 1999;25(8):1165-1167. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(99)00117-0
  12. 12. Liu Q , Gong XM, Chen JQ , Yang B, Ge J, To CH. Laser in situ keratomileusis induced corneal perforation and recurrent corneal epithelial ingrowth. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2005;31(4):857-859. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.09.027 251
  13. 13. Walton OB, Slade SG. Thin, irregular, buttoonhole flaps. In: Jl A, Azar DT, editors. Management of Complications in Refractive Surgery. Springer Inc.; 2018. pp. 23-26. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-60561-6_3
  14. 14. Chung SH, Mazur E. Surgical applications of femtosecond lasers. Journal of Biophotonics. 2009;2(10):557-572. DOI: 10.1002/jbio.200910053
  15. 15. Salomão MQ , Wilson SE. Femtosecond laser in laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2010;36(6):1024-1032. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.03.025
  16. 16. Kymionis GD, Kankariya VP, Plaka AD, Reinstein DZ. Femtosecond laser technology in corneal refractive surgery: A review. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2012;28(12):912-920. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20121116-01
  17. 17. Srinivasan S, Rootman DS. Anterior chamber gas bubble formation during femtosecond laser flap creation for LASIK. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2007;23(8):828-830. DOI: 10.3928/1081-597X-20071001-14
  18. 18. Jung HG, Kim J, Lim TH. Possible risk factors and clinical effects of an opaque bubble layer created with femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2015;41(7):1393-1399. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.10.039
  19. 19. Lim DH, Hyun J, Shin E, Ko BW, Chung ES, Chung TY. Incidence and risk factors of opaque bubble layer formation according to flap thickness during 500-kHz FS-LASIK. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2019;35(9):583-589. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20190814-01
  20. 20. Hurmeric V, Yoo SH, Fishler J, Chang VS, Wang J, Culbertson WW. In vivo structural characteristics of the femtosecond LASIK-induced opaque bubble layers with ultrahigh-resolution SD-OCT. Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers & Imaging. 2010;41(Suppl.):S109-S113. DOI: 10.3928/15428877-20101031-08
  21. 21. Kanellopoulos AJ, Asimellis G. Digital analysis of flap parameter accuracy and objective assessment of opaque bubble layer in femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK: A novel technique. Clinical Ophthalmology. 2013;7:343-351. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S39644
  22. 22. Soong HK, de Melo Franco R. Anterior chamber gas bubbles during femtosecond laser flap creation in LASIK: Video evidence of entry via trabecular meshwork. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery. Dec 2012;38(12):2184-2185. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.09.012. Epub 2012 Oct 13. PMID: 23073481
  23. 23. dos Santos AM, Torricelli AA, Marino GK, et al. Femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK flap complications. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2016;32(1):52-59. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20151119-01
  24. 24. Tse SM, Farley ND, Tomasko KR, Amin SR. Intraoperative LASIK complications. International Ophthalmology Clinics. 2016;56(2):47-57. DOI: 10.1097/IIO.0000000000000110
  25. 25. Srinivasan S, Herzig S. Sub-epithelial gas breakthrough during femtosecond laser flap creation for LASIK. The British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2007;91(10):1373. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2007.129213
  26. 26. Wei CH, Mei LX, Ge Y, Zhang PF. Managements of vertical gas breakthrough in femtosecond laser assisted LASIK. International Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020;13(9):1503-1504. DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2020.09.25
  27. 27. Vinciguerra P, Camesasca FI. Decentration after refractive surgery. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2001;17(Suppl. 2):S190-S191. DOI: 10.3928/1081-597X-20010302-07
  28. 28. Melki SA, Azar DT. Eight pearls in prevention and management of LASIK complications. In: Melki SA, Azar DT, editors. 101 Pearls in Refractive, Cataract and Corneal Surgery. Thorofare, NJ: Slack; 2001. pp. 23-32
  29. 29. Manche E, Roe J. Recent advances in wavefront-guided LASIK. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology. 2018;29(4):286-291. DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000488
  30. 30. Duffey RJ. Central islands and decentered ablations after LASIK. International Ophthalmology Clinics. 2000;40(3):93-101. DOI: 10.1097/00004397-200007000-00012
  31. 31. Kang SW, Chung ES, Kim WJ. Clinical analysis of central islands after laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2000;26(4):536-542. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(99)00458-7
  32. 32. Tsai YY, Lin JM. Natural history of central islands after laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2000;26(6):853-858. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(00)00375-8
  33. 33. Johnson JD, Azar DT. Surgically induced topographical abnormalities after LASIK: Management of central islands, corneal ectasia, decentration, and irregular astigmatism. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology. 2001;12(4):309-317. DOI: 10.1097/00055735-200108000-00012
  34. 34. Randleman JB, Lynn MJ, Banning CS, Stulting RD. Risk factors for epithelial defect formation during laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2007;33(10):1738-1743. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.05.038
  35. 35. Smirennaia E, Sheludchenko V, Kourenkova N, Kashnikova O. Management of corneal epithelial defects following laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2001;17(Suppl. 2):S196-S199. DOI: 10.3928/1081-597X-20010302-09
  36. 36. Shah MN, Misra M, Wihelmus KR, Koch DD. Diffuse lamellar keratitis associated with epithelial defects after laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2000;26(9):1312-1318. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(00)00570-8
  37. 37. Hirst LW, Vandeleur KW Jr. Laser in situ keratomileusis interface deposits. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 1998;14(6):653-654. DOI: 10.3928/1081-597X-19981101-15
  38. 38. Mimouni M, Vainer I, Assad N, et al. Incidence, indications, and outcomes of eyes needing early flap lifting after LASIK. Cornea. 2018;37(9):1118-1123. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001617
  39. 39. Wallerstein A, Gauvin M, Adiguzel E, et al. Clinically significant laser in situ keratomileusis flap striae. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2017;43(12):1523-1533. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.09.023
  40. 40. Shah DN, Melki S. Complications of femtosecond-assisted laser in-situ keratomileusis flaps. Seminars in Ophthalmology. 2014;29(5-6):363-375. DOI: 10.3109/08820538.2014.959194
  41. 41. Abdelazeem K, Nassr MA, Abdelmotaal H, Wasfi E, El-Sebaity DM. Flap sliding technique for managing flap striae following laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020;2020:5614327. [Accessed: February 24, 2020]. DOI: 10.1155/2020/5614327
  42. 42. Hardten DR, Hardten AG, Hardten SA. Management of the distorted Flap. In: Alio J, Azar D, editors. Management of Complications in Refractive Surgery. Cham: Springer; 2018. pp. 33-36. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-60561-6_5
  43. 43. Iskander NG, Peters NT, Anderson Penno E, Gimbel HV. Late traumatic flap dislocation after laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2001;27(7):1111-1114. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(01)00752-0
  44. 44. Clare G, Moore TC, Grills C, Leccisotti A, Moore JE, Schallhorn S. Early flap displacement after LASIK. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(9):1760-1765. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.01.053
  45. 45. Netto MV, Wilson SE. Flap lift for LASIK retreatment in eyes with myopia. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(7):1362-1367. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.11.009
  46. 46. Yuen LH, Chan WK, Koh J, Mehta JS, Tan DT. SingLasik research group. A 10-year prospective audit of LASIK outcomes for myopia in 37,932 eyes at a single institution in Asia. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(6):1236-1244.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.10.042
  47. 47. Alió JL, Muftuoglu O, Ortiz D, et al. Ten-year follow-up of laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia of up to −10 diopters. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2008;145(1):46-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.09.010
  48. 48. Randleman JB, White AJ Jr, Lynn MJ, Hu MH, Stulting RD. Incidence, outcomes, and risk factors for retreatment after wavefront-optimized ablations with PRK and LASIK. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2009;25(3):273-276. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20090301-06 62
  49. 49. Hood CT, Shtein RM, Veldheer D, et al. The effect of humidity and temperature on visual outcomes after myopic corneal laser refractive surgery. Clinical Ophthalmology. 2016;10:2231-2236. [Accessed: November 4, 2016]. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S118503
  50. 50. Shen EP, Chen WL, Hu FR. Manual limbal markings versus iris-registration software for correction of myopic astigmatism by laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2010;36(3):431-436. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.10.030
  51. 51. Schallhorn SC, Venter JA, Hannan SJ, Hettinger KA, Teenan D. Flap lift and photorefractive keratectomy enhancements after primary laser in situ keratomileusis using a wavefront-guided ablation profile: Refractive and visual outcomes. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2015;41(11):2501-2512. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.05.031
  52. 52. Gritz DC. LASIK interface keratitis: Epidemiology, diagnosis and care. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology. 2011;22(4):251-255. DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e3283477b52
  53. 53. Smith RJ, Maloney RK. Diffuse lamellar keratitis. A new syndrome in lamellar refractive surgery. Ophthalmology. 1998;105(9):1721-1726. DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(98)99044-3
  54. 54. MacRae S, Macaluso DC, Rich LF. Sterile interface keratitis associated with micropannus hemorrhage after laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 1999;25(12):1679-1681. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(99)00248-5
  55. 55. Holland SP, Mathias RG, Morck DW, Chiu J, Slade SG. Diffuse lamellar keratitis related to endotoxins released from sterilizer reservoir biofilms. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(7):1227-1234. DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00246-3
  56. 56. Kaufman SC. Post-LASIK interface keratitis, Sands of the Sahara syndrome, and microkeratome blades. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 1999;25(5):603-604
  57. 57. Fogla R, Rao SK, Padmanabhan P. Diffuse lamellar keratitis: Are meibomian secretions responsible? Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2001;27(4):493-495. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(01)00819-7
  58. 58. Gil-Cazorla R, Teus MA, de Benito-Llopis L, Fuentes I. Incidence of diffuse lamellar keratitis after laser in situ keratomileusis associated with the IntraLase 15 kHz femtosecond laser and Moria M2 microkeratome. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2008;34(1):28-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.08.025
  59. 59. Choe CH, Guss C, Musch DC, Niziol LM, Shtein RM. Incidence of diffuse lamellar keratitis after LASIK with 15 KHz, 30 KHz, and 60 KHz femtosecond laser flap creation. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2010;36(11):1912-1918. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.09.003
  60. 60. Linebarger EJ, Hardten DR, Lindstrom RL. Diffuse lamellar keratitis: Diagnosis and management. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2000;26(7):1072-1077. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(00)00468-5
  61. 61. Moshirfar M, Hazin R, Khalifa YM. Central toxic keratopathy. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology. 2010;21(4):274-279. DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e32833a8cb2
  62. 62. Jutley G, Aiello F, Robaei D, Maurino V. Central toxic keratopathy after laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2014;40(12):1985-1993. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.03.030
  63. 63. Randleman JB, Shah RD. LASIK interface complications: Etiology, management, and outcomes. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2012;28(8):575-586. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20120722-01
  64. 64. Hazin R, Daoud YJ, Khalifa YM. What is central toxic keratopathy syndrome if it is not diffuse lamellar keratitis grade IV? Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology. 2010;17(1):60-62. DOI: 10.4103/0974-9233.61218
  65. 65. Thornton IL, Foulks GN, Eiferman RA. Confocal microscopy of central toxic keratopathy. Cornea. 2012;31(8):934-936. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181f7f109
  66. 66. Sikder S, Khalifa YM, Neuffer MC, Moshirfar M. Tomographic corneal profile analysis of central toxic keratopathy after LASIK. Cornea. 2012;31(1):48-51. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31821de341
  67. 67. Tourtas T, Kopsachilis N, Meiller R, Kruse FE, Cursiefen C. Pressure-induced interlamellar stromal keratitis after laser in situ keratomileusis. Cornea. 2011;30(8):920-923. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3182032002
  68. 68. Belin MW, Hannush SB, Yau CW, Schultze RL. Elevated intraocular pressure-induced interlamellar stromal keratitis. Ophthalmology. 2002;109(10):1929-1933. DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(02)01163-6
  69. 69. Kurian M, Shetty R, Shetty BK, Devi SA. In vivo confocal microscopic findings of interlamellar stromal keratopathy induced by elevated intraocular pressure. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2006;32(9):1563-1566. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.03.041
  70. 70. Cabral-Macias J, García-De la Rosa G, Rodríguez-Matilde DF, et al. Pressure-induced stromal keratopathy after laser in situ keratomileusis: Acute and late-onset presentations. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2018;44(10):1284-1290. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.06.053
  71. 71. Ortega-Usobiaga J, Llovet-Osuna F, Djodeyre MR, Llovet-Rausell A, Beltran J, Baviera J. Incidence of corneal infections after laser in situ keratomileusis and surface ablation when moxifloxacin and tobramycin are used as postoperative treatment. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2015;41(6):1210-1216
  72. 72. Donnenfeld ED, Kim T, Holland EJ, et al. ASCRS White Paper: Management of infectious keratitis following laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2005;31(10):2008-2011. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.10.030
  73. 73. Moshirfar M, Welling JD, Feiz V, Holz H, Clinch TE. Infectious and noninfectious keratitis after laser in situ keratomileusis Occurrence, management, and visual outcomes. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2007;33(3):474-483. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.11.005
  74. 74. Solomon R, Donnenfeld ED, Azar DT, et al. Infectious keratitis after laser in situ keratomileusis: results of an ASCRS survey. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2003;29(10):2001-2006. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(03)00512-1
  75. 75. Solomon R, Donnenfeld ED, Perry HD, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infectious keratitis following refractive surgery. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2007;143(4):629-634. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.12.029
  76. 76. Garg P, Chaurasia S, Vaddavalli PK, Muralidhar R, Mittal V, Gopinathan U. Microbial keratitis after LASIK. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2010;26(3):209-216. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20100224-07
  77. 77. Güell JL, Morral M, Elies D, Gris O, Gaytan J, Manero F. Melting. In: Alio JL, Azar DT, editors. Management of Complications in Refractive Surgery. 2nd ed. Springer; 2018. pp. 91-98
  78. 78. Castillo A, Diaz-Valle D, Gutierrez AR, Toledano N, Romero F. Peripheral melt of flap after laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 1998;14(1):61-63. DOI: 10.3928/1081-597X-19980101-12
  79. 79. Smith RJ, Maloney RK. Laser in situ keratomileusis in patients with autoimmune diseases. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2006;32(8):1292-1295. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.02.059
  80. 80. Stonecipher KG, Dishler JG, Ignacio TS, Binder PS. Transient light sensitivity after femtosecond laser flap creation: Clinical findings and management. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2006;32(1):91-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.11.015
  81. 81. Yan MK, Chang JS, Chan TC. Refractive regression after laser in situ keratomileusis. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology. 2018;46(8):934-944. DOI: 10.1111/ceo.13315
  82. 82. Alió JL, Soria F, Abbouda A, Peña-García P. Laser in situ keratomileusis for −6.00 to −18.00 diopters of myopia and up to −5.00 diopters of astigmatism: 15-year follow-up. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2015;41(1):33-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.08.029
  83. 83. Ting DSJ, Srinivasan S, Danjoux JP. Epithelial ingrowth following laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK): Prevalence, risk factors, management and visual outcomes. BMJ Open Ophthalmology. 2018;3(1):e000133. [Accessed: March 29, 2018]. DOI: 10.1136/bmjophth-2017-000133
  84. 84. Chen S, Feng Y, Stojanovic A, Jankov MR 2nd, Wang Q. IntraLase femtosecond laser vs mechanical microkeratomes in LASIK for myopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2012;28(1):15-24. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20111228-02
  85. 85. Friehmann A, Mimouni M, Nemet AY, Sela T, Munzer G, Kaiserman I. Risk factors for epithelial ingrowth following microkeratome-assisted LASIK. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2018;34(2):100-105. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20180105-01
  86. 86. Asano-Kato N, Toda I, Hori-Komai Y, Takano Y, Tsubota K. Epithelial ingrowth after laser in situ keratomileusis: Clinical features and possible mechanisms. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2002;134(6):801-807. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9394(02)01757-9
  87. 87. Caster AI, Friess DW, Schwendeman FJ. Incidence of epithelial ingrowth in primary and retreatment laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2010;36(1):97-101. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.07.039
  88. 88. Mohammed OA, Mounir A, Hassan AA, Alsmman AH, Mostafa EM. Nd:YAG laser for epithelial ingrowth after laser in situ keratomileusis. International Ophthalmology. 2019;39(6):1225-1230. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-018-0923-1
  89. 89. Bohac M, Koncarevic M, Pasalic A, et al. Incidence and clinical characteristics of post LASIK Ectasia: A review of over 30,000 LASIK cases. Seminars in Ophthalmology. 2018;33(7-8):869-877. DOI: 10.1080/08820538.2018.1539183
  90. 90. Randleman JB, Woodward M, Lynn MJ, Stulting RD. Risk assessment for ectasia after corneal refractive surgery. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(1):37-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.073
  91. 91. Klein SR, Epstein RJ, Randleman JB, Stulting RD. Corneal ectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis in patients without apparent preoperative risk factors. Cornea. 2006;25(4):388-403. DOI: 10.1097/01.ico.0000222479.68242.77
  92. 92. Seiler T, Quurke AW. Iatrogenic keratectasia after LASIK in a case of forme fruste keratoconus. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 1998;24(7):1007-1009. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(98)80057-6
  93. 93. Santhiago MR, Wilson SE, Smadja D, Chamon W, Krueger RE, Randleman JB. Validation of the percent tissue altered as a risk factor for ectasia after LASIK. Ophthalmology. 2019;126(6):908-909. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.01.018
  94. 94. Cohen E, Spierer O. Dry eye post-laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis: Major review and latest updates. Journal of Ophthalmology. 2018;2018:4903831. [Accessed: January 28, 2018]. DOI: 10.1155/2018/4903831
  95. 95. Albietz JM, Lenton LM, McLennan SG. Chronic dry eye and regression after laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2004;30(3):675-684. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2003.07.003
  96. 96. Albietz JM, Lenton LM. Management of the ocular surface and tear film before, during, and after laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2004;20(1):62-71. DOI: 10.3928/1081-597X-20040101-11
  97. 97. Raoof D, Pineda R. Dry eye after laser in-situ keratomileusis. Seminars in Ophthalmology. 2014;29(5-6):358-362. DOI: 10.3109/08820538.2014.962663
  98. 98. Shtein RM. Post-LASIK dry eye. Expert Review of Ophthalmology. 2011;6(5):575-582. DOI: 10.1586/eop.11.56
  99. 99. Darwish T, Brahma A, O’Donnell C, Efron N. Subbasal nerve fiber regeneration after LASIK and LASEK assessed by noncontact esthesiometry and in vivo confocal microscopy: Prospective study. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2007;33(9):1515-1521. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.05.023
  100. 100. Salib GM, McDonald MB, Smolek M. Safety and efficacy of cyclosporine 0.05% drops versus unpreserved artificial tears in dry-eye patients having laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2006;32(5):772-778. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.10.034
  101. 101. Myung D, Schallhorn S, Manche EE. Pupil size and LASIK: A review. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2013;29(11):734-741. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20131021-02
  102. 102. Miraftab M, Fotouhi A, Hashemi H, Jafari F, Shahnazi A, Asgari S. A modified risk assessment scoring system for post laser in situ keratomileusis ectasia in topographically normal patients. Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research. 2014;9(4):434-438. DOI: 10.4103/2008-322X.150806
  103. 103. Pop M, Payette Y. Risk factors for night vision complaints after LASIK for myopia. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(1):3-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.09.022
  104. 104. Schallhorn SC, Tanzer DJ, Kaupp SE, Brown M, Malady SE. Comparison of night driving performance after wavefront-guided and conventional LASIK for moderate myopia. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(4):702-709. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.12.038

Written By

Fanka Gilevska, Maja Bohač, Smiljka Popović Suić and Mateja Jagić

Submitted: 09 April 2022 Reviewed: 07 September 2022 Published: 11 October 2022