When was intralase developed

In our initial series of experiments, we discovered that the femtosecond laser had a number of unique properties that allowed for very precise material processing. These observations led to a successful patent application from the University of Michigan. At that time, refractive surgery was growing steadily, and the potential clinical and commercial opportunities for laser refractive technology were obvious. The idea for a laser microkeratome had originally been developed several years earlier using the picosecond laser.

However, the larger energies per pulse required for the picosecond laser produced much poorer-quality tissue resections for flaps. Our proof-of-concept studies of femtosecond laser flaps performed in animal eyes in and demonstrated this as one of the most promising potential surgical applications for this technology. Juhasz, designed both the laboratory and commercial versions of our laser.

For us, the popularization of LASIK made it feasible to raise money for developing our femtosecond laser from a laboratory experiment into a clinical tool.

With IntraLase, we were also able to combine key patents from different sources under one umbrella, again justifying the large capital investment required for development. Whether an existing company or a new venture undertakes a project, nobody wants to spend a lot of money on a product that a competitor can copy easily.

Our decision to begin our own company rather than license the idea to another company was also based on our belief that the femtosecond laser was a platform surgical technology, with a number of potential products. Clinical studies have shown that all FDA-approved femtosecond lasers are capable of producing excellent corneal flaps in all-laser LASIK, with less risk of certain flap complications associated with mechanical microkeratomes.

The type of femtosecond used by individual refractive surgeons usually is determined by the surgeon's personal preference. Your refractive surgeon will discuss the type of LASIK procedure he or she recommends for you during your pre-operative consultation.

Note: This information is for general education purposes only. It is not to be used as a substitute for medical advice from your eye doctor or refractive surgeon. Images and text on this site belong to Ceatus Media Group.

Copying or reproducing any text or graphics from this website is strictly prohibited by copyright law. Please read our copyright infringement policy. Skip to site menu. Yes — the excimer laser can be used to treat the surface of the eye without creating a flap. Surface ablation results in disruption of the epithelium. As a result, following the procedure, the eye is more uncomfortable and the vision is more blurred than with LASIK.

It takes a few days for the skin to re-organize. Although more uncomfortable, surface ablation is actually less invasive as no flap is required. Also surface ablation is better for patients with thin corneas, certain corneal dystrophies, and dry eyes. In the first step, the surgeon creates a flap of corneal tissue and folds it back to prepare the eye for the second step, in which an excimer laser is used on the mid-cornea to correct vision.

This two-step process allows for rapid visual recovery with little or no patient discomfort. Traditionally, the corneal flap was created with a hand-held microkeratome blade. While this method has worked well over the years, the performance of these devices can be unpredictable and is frequently the source of a majority of LASIK complications. These eye surgeons use both techniques but differ in their opinions about which method should be emphasized in uncomplicated LASIK procedures.

Both are on AllAboutVision. Thompson: I agree with that term. It's very important that there be truth in advertising, and the truth is that no blade is used.

Boxer Wachler: Technically IntraLase is bladeless. So the term is probably reasonable. Some people weren't happy about the use of the word "bladeless" because this implies that the microkeratome, which uses a blade, is scarier to the patient.

This was perceived by some as "hitting below the belt" because of the implication that a microkeratome is somehow more risky, when in fact it's not. Boxer Wachler: I'm for whatever is best for the patient, but I do use the microkeratome much more often than I do IntraLase. Microkeratomes make the procedure go so much faster and are much more comfortable for the patient. Suction in a microkeratome procedure lasts about three seconds, whereas suction using IntraLase lasts about seconds at its fastest.

Also, you use less suction on the eye with a microkeratome. I prefer patients to be as comfortable as possible, which is why I prefer the microkeratome.

Thompson, what are the advantages of IntraLase laser over microkeratomes blade? But I like using the safest technology for the situation. When the FDA approved the laser flap maker IntraLase in , the blade or microkeratome flaps were the main source of my vision threatening complications in LASIK — whether they were free caps unattached flaps , partial flaps, or buttonholes improperly formed flaps or an epithelial slough damaged eye tissue.

So I liked the idea of a laser flap maker.