Comparison of Moderate- to High-Astigmatism Corrections Using WaveFront–Guided Laser In Situ Keratomileusis and Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction

Outcomes of Astigmatic Correction with and without Two Different Cyclotorsion Compensation Methods in Small Incision Lenticule Extraction Surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the astigmatic correction outcomes of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) surgery with or without two different cyclotorsion compensation methods.

METHODS

This is a prospective randomized clinical trial. Patients with myopic astigmatism that underwent SMILE surgery were randomly divided into static cyclotorsion compensated group (SCC group), slit-lamp group and control group. In the SCC and slit-lamp groups, the intraoperative cyclotorsion was manually compensated with different limbal marking methods. In the control group, the cyclotorsion was not compensated. Visual acuity and manifest refraction were measured preoperatively and postoperatively. Astigmatic outcomes were estimated with vector analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 94 eyes from 94 patients were analyzed postoperatively at the 3-month follow-up. Their mean preoperative cylinder was -1.56±0.86 D (range: -4.25 to -0.25 D). The mean preoperative spherical equivalent was -5.95±1.72 D (range: -10.50 to -2.75 D). All groups showed favorable results in the correction of myopic astigmatism. No statistically differences were found among three groups in postoperative visual acuity, refractive outcomes or vector parameters.

CONCLUSION

Cyclotorsion compensation with two different manual limbal marking methods was helpful in aligning the surgical position in SMILE, but it was not as effective as expected for the correction of myopic astigmatism under well controlled surgical positioning.

Effect of Cyclotorsion Compensation in Small Incision Lenticule Extraction Surgery for the Correction of Myopic Astigmatism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) has made notable advancements in addressing myopic astigmatism. Nevertheless, the potential impact of cyclotorsion on surgical outcomes cannot be overlooked. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of cyclotorsion compensation technology in SMILE surgery for the correction of myopic astigmatism, examining its influence on postoperative visual quality.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. A comprehensive literature search was performed using databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Scopus, CNKI, VIP, and Wan Fang. Studies meeting the criteria were selected and included. Data were independently extracted by three authors. Clinical outcome parameters were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.3.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included ten studies. The results showed that, compared with the control group (cyclotorsion compensation was not performed in SMILE), the following indicators in the cyclotorsion compensation group were: residual astigmatism (RA) [weighted mean difference (MD) = 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) + 0.26 to + 1.19, P = 0.002], spherical equivalent (SE) (MD = 1.99, 95% CI + 0.77 to + 3.21, P = 0.001), coma (MD = -0.06, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.04, P < 0.00001), higher-order aberrations (HOAs) (MD = -0.04, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.02, P < 0.0001), follow-up 6-month angle of error (AE) (MD = -2.67, 95% CI -3.71 to -1.63, P < 0.00001), and follow-up 6-month uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) (MD = -0.05, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.01, P = 0.005), and the differences in results were statistically significant. However, the differences among correction index, index of success (IOS), targeted induced astigmatism (TIA), magnitude of error (ME), and spherical aberration (SA) were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Cyclotorsion compensation proves to be effective and predictable for correcting myopic astigmatism. The cyclotorsion compensation group demonstrated advantages over the control group in terms of postoperative residual astigmatism, and it induced fewer coma aberrations. Whether cyclotorsion compensation can lead to better visual quality remains to be seen, and further research on correcting myopic astigmatism through cyclotorsion compensation is warranted.

Clinical outcomes of SMILE and WFG-LASIK used to treat myopia and astigmatism: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety, efficacy and postoperative visual quality of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and Wavefront-Guided Laser in situ keratomileusis (WFG-LASIK) and to analyze their efficacy in correcting astigmatism.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science. RevMan software version 5.3.0 was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 976 eyes were included in 8 studies, of which 539 eyes underwent SMILE and 437 eyes underwent WFG-LASIK. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of eyes achieving uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better (P=0.18), the proportion of eyes within±0.50 diopter of target refraction postoperatively (P=0.10), or the postoperative magnitude of cylinder (P=0.10). Regarding the Alpins vector analysis of astigmatism, there was no statistically significant difference in the surgical magnitude of error (P=0.09) between the two groups. WFG-LASIK has a lower surgical angle of error (P= 0.002) and higher surgical correction index of cylinder (P=0.03) than SMILE. In terms of aberrations, higher order aberrations (P=0.46), spherical aberrations (P=0.22) and trefoil (P=0.56) were not statistically different, while WFG-LASIK induced less coma than SMILE surgery (P=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Both SMILE and WFG-LASIK are safe and effective ways to correct myopia and astigmatism. Compared with SMILE, WFG-LASIK has a lower surgical angle of error, higher surgical correction index of cylinder and induces less coma.

Comparison of myopic astigmatic correction after cross-assisted SMILE, FS-LASIK, and transPRK

PURPOSE

To compare astigmatic correction among cross-assisted small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK), and transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (transPRK).

SETTING

The Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Zhejiang, China.

DESIGN

Prospective comparison study.

METHODS

154 right eyes of 154 patients with astigmatism of -1.00 to -2.75 diopters (D) were included in this study. 64 eyes, 42 eyes, and 48 eyes were receiving SMILE, FS-LASIK, and transPRK, respectively. The SMILE group used cross-axial alignment for head positioning for astigmatism correction. In the FS-LASIK and transPRK groups, static and dynamic cyclotorsion control were used. Changes in ocular parameters and vector analysis were assessed at 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

The safety and efficacy indices were comparable among the 3 groups at 6 months postoperatively. Residual astigmatism was smallest in the SMILE group (-0.23 ± 0.25 D) compared with that in FS-LASIK (-0.40 ± 0.28 D, P = .009) and transPRK groups (-0.42 ± 0.32 D, P = .001). 53 (82.8%), 36 (85.7%), and 37 (77.1%) eyes achieved an angle of error within ±5 degrees, respectively ( P = .55). Notably, vector analysis showed that the difference vector, the magnitude of the error, and its absolute value were significantly smaller in the SMILE group than those in the other groups ( P < .05). In addition, the higher-order aberrations, especially coma, were significantly induced postoperatively in each group ( P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Residual astigmatism magnitude was smallest by cross-assisted SMILE, followed by FS-LASIK and transPRK, and the astigmatism axial correction was comparable among groups.

Vector analysis of astigmatism correction after PRK, FS-LASIK, and SMILE for myopic astigmatism

PURPOSE

To compare astigmatic correction among photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK), and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled 157 eyes that underwent three procedures (59 PRK, 47 FS-LASIK, and 51 SMILE) for the treatment of myopia with low to high astigmatism (- 0.25 to - 4.50 D). Ocular residual astigmatism (ORA) was calculated by vector analysis using refractive (RA) and corneal astigmatism. Vector analysis results were compared in different procedures in the two RA groups (low ≤ 1.00 D and high > 1.00 D) at 3 and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

There were no significant between-group differences in postoperative safety and efficacy outcomes (all P > 0.05). No significant differences were found in postoperative cylinders between all surgical groups (all p > 0.05), except for 3 months postoperative ORA in FS-LASIK (P = 0.004). At 12 months, 77%, 59.2%, and 50% of eyes attain emmetropia in the FS-LASIK, SMILE, and PRK groups, respectively. Vector analysis showed comparable values for surgical induced astigmatism, target induced astigmatism, mean error, and angle of error between groups at 12 months. Significant differences were observed only in the correction index and difference vector parameters in the astigmatic > 1.00 D group at 3 months (P < 0.001), and FS-LASIK was preferable.

CONCLUSIONS

One-year outcomes revealed that PRK, FS-LASIK, and SMILE were all equally effective in correcting myopic astigmatism. However, FS-LASIK demonstrated more favorable astigmatism correction in eyes with astigmatism > 1.00D in early postoperatively.

Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) Versus Laser Assisted Stromal In Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) for Astigmatism Corrections: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and laser assisted stromal in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for astigmatism correction.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis METHODS: We reviewed published studies comparing outcomes after LASIK and SMILE for astigmatism correction by querying PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science, with a cut-off date of September 3, 2022. We also compared the changes in visual acuity, refraction, and high-order aberrations between the surgeries. Astigmatism correction outcomes in the low-to-moderate group (less than or equal to -2.00 D) and high group (greater than -2.00 D) were evaluated using vector analysis. The Cochrane risk of bias tool in RevMan software was used for randomized studies (RCT), and Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) was used for the nonrandomized studies (NRSs).

RESULTS

There were 17 studies (5 randomized studies and 12 cohort studies), including 1,985 eyes. A statistically significant difference was found in the correction index (mean difference [MD] = -0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.04 to -0.01, P =0.01), although there was no significant difference in the index of success (MD = 0.01, 95% CI = -0.03 to 0.05, P =0.51), different vector (MD = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.00 to 0.13, P =0.04), and angle of error (MD = 0.56, 95% CI = -0.34 to 1.45, P =0.22) between SMILE and LASIK. However, for low-to-moderate astigmatism correction, SMILE exhibited a smaller correction index (MD = -0.08, 95% CI= -0.13 to -0.02, P =0.008) and a larger difference vector (MD = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.27, P <0.0001) than LASIK. There was no significant difference between the different procedures in visual acuity and refraction (spherical equivalent: MD = -0.04, 95% CI = -0.08 to 0.01, P =0.15) or high-order aberration (MD = -0.01, 95% CI = -0.07 to 0.04, P =0.67), except spherical aberration (MD = -0.12, 95% CI = -0.23 to -0.01, P =0.04). The risk of bias was moderate in most studies because of poor reporting of several bias domains for RCTs, and because of confounding and selective outcome reporting for NRSs.

CONCLUSIONS

When used to treat severe astigmatism, both SMILE and LASIK provide effective and predictable results and generally have equivalent outcomes. However, evidence reveals a tendency toward undercorrection in the SMILE groups for astigmatism correction. In addition, LASIK has a greater probability of causing postoperative spherical aberration.

Clinical outcomes and higher order aberrations of wavefront-guided LASIK versus SMILE for correction of myopia: A systemic review and meta-analysis

To systematically evaluate the clinical effect of wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis (WFG-LASIK) and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) in terms of refractive errors and high-order aberrations. A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Internet was performed to identify studies evaluating the clinical outcomes of SMILE and WFG-LASIK ended in May 2022. Meta-analyses were performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. The risk of bias of the RCTs was evaluated using the Cochrane Handbook criteria, and the quality of the non-randomised controlled studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. In total, 1385 eyes (SMILE group, 750 eyes; WFG-LASIK group, 635 eyes) from 12 studies were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated that spherical aberration was smaller in the SMILE group than in the WFG-LASIK group (standardised mean difference [SMD]: -0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.47, -0.22; p < 0.00001), and that the postoperative values of vertical coma (SMD: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.03; p < 0.00001) and trefoil (SMD: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.72; p = 0.04) were higher in the SMILE group compared to the WFG LASIK group. There were no significant differences in the clinical outcomes and the values of induced total higher order aberrations between the WFG-LASIK and SMILE groups (SMD: 0.05; 95% CI: -0.09, 0.19; p = 0.47). Both SMILE and WFG-LASIK were found to be safe, effective, and predictable. SMILE may induce more vertical coma and trefoil, whereas WFG LASIK may induce more spherical aberrations, but no significant differences were found in the total higher order aberrations between SMILE and WFG-LASIK.

Efficacy of small-incision lenticule extraction surgery in high astigmatism: A meta-analysis

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) in improving vision and visual quality and correcting astigmatism for the treatment of high astigmatism.

Methods

Eligible studies and studies comparing the efficacy of SMILE with femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) or transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (T-PRK) for high astigmatism (≥2.00 D) were identified in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, searched from their inception to 29 May 2022. The references of all searched studies were checked as supplements. The risk of bias was evaluated for each eligible study. The literature was screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and relative data were extracted. Data were extracted and analyzed by ReviewManager 5.4. The primary outcome was post-operative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA). The secondary outcomes included corneal aberrations and vector parameters. The weight mean difference (WMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used to assess the strength of the association.

Results

A total of six studies including 380 astigmatism eyes were involved, with 211 high-astigmatism eyes and 31 low-astigmatism eyes undergoing SMILE surgery, 94 high-astigmatism eyes undergoing FS-LASIK surgery, and 44 high-astigmatism eyes undergoing T-PRK surgery. Compared with non-SMILE, SMILE induced more astigmatism (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.12 to -0.02], P = 0.005) and fewer sphere aberrations (WMD = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.17 to -0.08], P < 0.00001). The post-operative UDVA, sphere, spherical equivalent (SE), and higher order aberrations in different surgeries were likewise equivalent. The difference vector and index of success were significantly higher, and the surgically induced astigmatism vector, correction index, and magnitude of error were significantly lower in SMILE.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that SMILE, FS-LASIK, and T-PRK show excellent efficacy, predictability, and safety for myopia. SMILE exhibited less astigmatism refraction predictability and less surgically induced spherical aberrations. There may be more under-correction in SMILE. More randomized, prospective, and large sample-sized studies are needed to confirm these conclusions in the long term.

SMILE after DALK to reduce residual refraction: two-year results

PURPOSE

To determine the two-year results of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for correcting post-keratoplasty myopia and myopic astigmatism.

METHODS

In this case-series study, 10 eyes of 10 patients with a 6- to 10-year history of successful deep lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) underwent SMILE using the VisuMax laser platform. Ophthalmologic examinations and visual acuity and refraction measurement were taken pre- and 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. The Pentacam and Sirius imaging were done in the first and last follow-up sessions.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 39.60 ± 7.86 years. Six subjects were male. Two years after SMILE, the mean improvement in UDVA and CDVA was 3.60 ± 1.84 (P < 0.001) and 1.60 ± 2.91 (P = 0.231) LogMAR, respectively. The mean decrease in spherical equivalent, spherical error, and cylinder power was 1.92 ± 1.96 diopter (D) (P = 0.013), 0.70 ± 3.05D (P = 0.213), and 2.42 ± 2.91D (P = 0.024), respectively. The vector mean target-induced astigmatism, surgical-induced astigmatism, and difference vector were 1.30D@44˚, 1.11D@24˚, and 0.86D@73˚, respectively. Two years after SMILE, vertical coma, horizontal coma, and spherical aberration increased by 0.44 ± 0.51, 0.23 ± 0.32, and 0.02 ± 0.16 µm, respectively, (all P > 0.05) while trefoil reduced by 0.29 ± 0.75 µm (P = 0.428).

CONCLUSION

SMILE can be an effective procedure for reducing refraction and astigmatism after DALK in patients with moderate myopia and moderate to severe astigmatism and improves the visual acuity in these patients. Axis rotation during surgery may result in under-correction of astigmatism. Refinement of SMILE treatment nomogram for post-DALK cases seems necessary.

Vector analysis of high astigmatism (≥ 2.0 diopters) correction after small-incision lenticule extraction with stringent head positioning and femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis with compensation of cyclotorsion

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare the astigmatic correction by vector analysis in patients with high myopic astigmatism after femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) with cyclotorsion compensation or small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) with stringent head positioning.

Setting

Beijing Aier-Intech Eye Hospital, Beijing, China.

Design

A retrospective case series.

Methods

Patients who had correction of myopic astigmatism of 2 diopters (D) or more treated with either FS-LASIK with cyclotorsion compensation or SMILE with stringent head positioning were included. The results of vision and refraction were analyzed and compared between groups with the right eye.

Results

The study enrolled 94 patients (41eyes in an FS-LASIK with compensation of cyclotorsion group and 53 eyes in a SMILE with stringent head positioning control group. The mean preoperative manifest cylinder was -2.65 ± 0.77D in the FS-LASIK group and 2.51 ± 0.56D in the SMILE group (P = 0.302). At 12 months, there was no significant between-group difference in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA, P = 0.274) and postoperative spherical equivalent (SEQ) (P = 0.107). 46.3% and 24.5% of eyes in the FS-LASIK and SMILE groups were within 0.25 D were within 0.25D postoperative cylinder, respectively, and 78% and 66% of eyes in these two groups were within 0.5 D postoperative cylinder (P = 0.027, P = 0.202). The vector analysis showed comparable between-group target-induced astigmatism (TIA) (P = 0.114), surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) (P = 0.057), difference vector (DV, P = 0.069), and the angle of error (AE) (P = 0 .213) values. The index of success (IOS) was 0.18 in the FS-LASIK group and 0.24 in the SMILE group (P = 0.024), with a significant difference between the two groups.

Conclusion

FS-LASIK with compensation of cyclotorsion showed a favorable correction of high myopic astigmatism (≥ 2.0 D) compared to SMILE with stringent head positioning at 12 months.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of LASIK, Trans-PRK, and SMILE for correction of myopia

Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (Trans-PRK), laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) are three mainstay refractive surgeries worldwide. The applicability, efficacy, safety, and predictability of these different techniques are quite similar. Trans-PRK has the strongest biostability, earliest return to normal corneal sensitivity but the longest recovery time, most uncomfortable postoperative experience, and possibility of corneal haze. LASIK possesses the fastest visual rehabilitation but the slowest corneal nerve reinnervation, and flap displacement is possibly lifelong. SMILE incurs no flap-related complications and has intermediate vision recovery time and biomechanics compared with Trans-PRK and LASIK. However, it lacks the cyclotorsion-compensation system, eye-tracking system, and customized treatment profile for high astigmatism or irregular corneal surface. This review aims to introduce the mechanisms, pros, and cons of these three types of refractive surgery. With full understanding, practitioners could advise patients on the most suitable treatment of choice.

Comparison of refractive and visual outcomes between image-guided assisted small incision lenticule extraction and wavefront-optimized femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis in treatment of high astigmatism

PURPOSE

To compare refractive and visual results of image-guided assisted small-incision lenticule extraction (IGA-SMILE) and wavefront-optimized femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) in the treatment of high astigmatism.

SETTINGS

Osmangazi Aritmi Hospital, Bursa, Turkey.

DESIGN

Retrospective.

METHODS

This retrospective case-matched study included 64 eyes that had undergone IGA-SMILE and 64 eyes that had undergone wavefront optimized FS-LASIK. The mean preoperative myopia and astigmatism were -4.05 ±1.98 diopter (D) and 3.11 ±1.06 D in the IGA-SMILE group and -4.21 ±2.23 D and -3.15 ±0.62 D in the FS-LASIK group. One year later, visual and refractive results were compared in the groups. Vector analysis based on Alpins method was done to evaluate astigmatic treatment.

RESULTS

At one year, the residual astigmatism was -0.21 ± 0.25 D in the IGA-SMILE and -0.21 ± 0.24 D in the FS-LASIK group (p=0.305). In the IGA-SMILE group, 57 (89.1%) eyes achieved uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/20 or better, as did 56 (85.9%) eyes in the FS-LASIK group. Vector analysis results demonstrated that the difference vectors were 0.22 ±0.24 D and 0.21 ±0.22 D (p=0.230), the correction indexes were 0.95 ±0.08 and 0.95 ±0.08 (p=0.239), the indices of success were 0.08 ±0.09 and 0.08±0.09 (p=0.248), in the IGA-SMILE and the FS-LASIK groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The combination of an image-guided system with SMILE resulted in high efficacy and safety indices that were comparable to FS-LASIK surgery.

Comparative study of small-incision lenticule extraction with and without prophylactic corneal crosslinking: 1-year outcomes

PURPOSE

To compare myopia and astigmatic correction after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) with or without prophylactic crosslinking (SMILE Xtra).

SETTING

Shenyang Aier Eye Hospital, Central South University, China.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

METHODS

Patients with comparable manifest sphere and cylinder undergoing SMILE Xtra or SMILE were enrolled. The crosslinking (CXL) energy was 2.7 J/cm2. Only right eyes were selected. Visual and refractive changes were evaluated for 1 year. Astigmatic correction was analyzed using Alpins method.

RESULTS

Thirty-six eyes undergoing SMILE Xtra and 40 eyes undergoing SMILE were enrolled. The uncorrected distance visual acuity at 1-day visit was lower after SMILE Xtra than that after SMILE (P = .01). At 12 months, the mean manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) and manifest cylinder were 0.08 ± 0.32 diopters (D) and -0.29 ± 0.23 D in SMILE Xtra group, whereas -0.25 ± 0.29 D and -0.22 ± 0.19 D in SMILE group (P < .01 and P = .135), respectively. Thirty-four eyes (94%) and 32 eyes (89%) in SMILE Xtra group and 36 eyes (91%) and 39 eyes (98%) in SMILE group exhibited target MRSE and manifest cylinder within ±0.50 D (P = .771 and P = .294), respectively. Compared with SMILE group, spherical correction index (SCI), correction index (CI), and difference vector were higher in SMILE Xtra group since 1-week follow-up (all P < .05). SCI and CI were slightly more than 1.0 after SMILE Xtra even at postoperative 12-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

With CXL protocol of 30 mW/cm2 for 90 seconds, SMILE Xtra exhibited comparable astigmatic correction with SMILE up to 1-year follow-up, although slight spherical equivalent and astigmatic overcorrection were evident after SMILE Xtra.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between vector planning and manifest refraction planning in SMILE for myopic astigmatism

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes of small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) between manifest refraction (MR) and vector planning for myopic astigmatism with high ocular residual astigmatism (ORA).

SETTING

Yonsei University College of Medicine and Eyereum Eye Clinic, Seoul, South Korea.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, comparative case series.

METHODS

Patients with myopic astigmatism and ORA of 0.75 diopters (D) or greater were randomized into the MR or vector planning group and underwent SMILE without applying any nomogram for cylinder correction. Visual acuity, MR, corneal topography, and corneal aberration were measured preoperatively and postoperatively. Outcomes at 6 months postoperatively were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The study comprised 114 patients (114 eyes): 58 eyes in MR planning and 56 eyes in vector planning. The mean uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity, safety and efficacy indices were comparable between the 2 groups. Postoperative refractive cylinder reached statistically significant differences between the groups (-0.22 ± 0.18 D and -0.14 ± 0.16 D in the MR and vector planning groups, respectively, P = .02). Postoperative corneal toricity and ORA reached statistically significant lower in the vector planning group.

CONCLUSIONS

In myopic astigmatism with high ORA, MR and vector planning in SMILE were effective with comparable visual outcomes; vector planning showed statistically significant lower postoperative refractive and corneal astigmatism and ORA. Use of vector planning may improve refractive outcomes in SMILE cases with high ORA. However, the results may have been different had a nomogram adjustment been applied, as is often used for cylinder corrections with SMILE.

Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE): Myths and Realities

The emergence of SMILE in the last decade has provided an alternative to LASIK for patients considering cornea laser refractive surgery. SMILE offers a novel approach using the femtosecond laser to create an intrastromal lenticule that can be removed through a small three to four millimeter incision.The purpose of this study is to review the recent literature on popular SMILE claims - reduced iatrogenic dry eye, better recovery of corneal sensation, and a biomechanically stronger cornea - summarize the published outcomes, and determine which claims are myths versus realities.SMILE is still in its infancy as a refractive technique in the US after recent USFDA approval for its treatment of myopia astigmatism in October 2018. Future randomized controlled studies are needed to compare its outcomes to LASIK, which has well-documented good visual outcomes, rapid postoperative recovery, and good safety profile.

Corneal Epithelial Thickness Changes Following SMILE for Myopia With High Astigmatism

PURPOSE

To evaluate the corneal epithelial thickness (CET) profile changes after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) surgery for myopic astigmatism correction of greater than 2.00 diopters (D).

METHODS

This prospective observational study included 40 eyes (23 patients) treated with SMILE for myopia with cylinders of -2.25 to -4.50 D. Along with standard ophthalmic examinations, CET maps with a diameter of 9 mm were measured by high-resolution spectral-domain optical coherence tomography preoperatively and postoperatively. Correlations between the degree of residual astigmatism and the difference in CET values between preoperative flat and steep meridians were analyzed.

RESULTS

The CET showed significant changes in the central (2 mm), paracentral (2 to 5 mm), midperipheral (5 to 7 mm), and peripheral (7 to 9 mm) zones 6 months after SMILE (P < .001). Among the regions, the CET in the paracentral zones displayed the largest increase (9.75%) with the highest average thickness (57.29 µm). Moreover, symmetrical regional epithelial thickening at the preoperative astigmatism axis was observed in the midperipheral zones. The difference in CET between preoperative flat and steep meridians in the mid-peripheral zones continuously increased from postoperative 1 day to 6 months. This difference was positively correlated with the residual cylinder errors at 6 months postoperatively (r = -0.334, P = .035).

CONCLUSIONS

The 9-mm diameter CET in eyes with high astigmatism significantly increased 6 months after SMILE. Additionally, the difference in CET between preoperative flat and steep meridians in midperipheral zones may be related to astigmatic undercorrection in SMILE. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(4):224-230.].

Comparison of corneal aberrations and refractive outcomes after small-incision lenticule extraction and femtosecond-assisted laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis

PURPOSES

To retrospectively compare the short-term refractive outcomes and corneal aberrations after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond-assisted laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) combined with smart pulse technology (SPT) in patients with compound myopic astigmatism.

METHODS

A total of 91 eyes (91 patients) were included, 43eyes in FS-LASIK group and 48 eyes in the SMILE group. Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), refractive results and corneal topography were evaluated 1 and 3 months postoperatively. Corneal aberrations of anterior corneal surface were calculated from the topography data over 6 mm-diameter.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in UCVA, BCVA, and refractive results between the two groups. There were no statistical difference in TIA (target induced astigmatism), SIA (surgery induced astigmatism), DV (difference vector), ME (magnitude of error), AE (angle of error), AE (absolute value) and CI (correction index) between both groups at 1 and 3 months. Coma and spherical aberration improved in all the patients in both groups at 1 and 3 months postoperatively. The amount of induced spherical aberrations was higher in FS-LASIK group compared to SMILE group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both FS-LASIK and SMILE achieved similar refractive outcomes in patients with myopia and compound myopic astigmatism. FS-LASIK combined with SPT resulted in higher spherical aberration than SMILE in early postoperative period.

LASIK versus PRK for high astigmatism

PURPOSE

To compare the refractive outcomes of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for myopic astigmatism of 3 diopters (D) or more.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective matched comparative study.

METHODS

This study include consecutive myopic patients (SE 0 to -10 D) undergoing LASIK or PRK between 2007 and 2016 with astigmatism of 3 to 6 D, and postoperative follow-up of at least 30 days for LASIK and 60 days for PRK, compared outcomes of LASIK and PRK eyes.

RESULTS

The LASIK and PRK groups comprised 175 eyes of 175 patients each, with median follow-up of 39 and 139 days, respectively (P < 0.001). Mean preoperative manifest astigmatism was -3.35 ± 0.46 and -3.42 ± 0.51 D (P = 0.92), postoperative SE was -0.43 ± 0.55 and -0.16 ± 0.64 D (P < 0.001), and arithmetic astigmatism was -0.59 ± 0.46 and -0.88 ± 0.60 D (P < 0.001), for the LASIK and PRK groups, respectively. Fifty-seven and 64.0% eyes had postoperative SE within ± 0.5 D of emmetropia (P = 0.19), and 57.7 and 38.8% eyes were within 0.5 D of attempted astigmatic correction (P < 0.001) for the LASIK and PRK groups, respectively. More PRK eyes were overtreated regarding both SE and astigmatism than LASIK eyes (P < 0.001). The efficacy and safety indices were close to 1.0 in both groups. The surgically induced astigmatism, magnitude of error, index of success, correction index and flattening index were all better in the LASIK group.

CONCLUSION

Both LASIK and PRK achieve good outcomes in high astigmatism. LASIK achieved mild superiority over PRK.

Comparison of Wavefront-Guided Femtosecond LASIK and Optimized SMILE for Correction of Moderate-to-High Astigmatism

PURPOSE

To compare refractive outcomes, higher order aberrations (HOAs), and the changes in contrast sensitivity after wavefront-guided femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (WFG LASIK) and optimized small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for moderate-to-high astigmatism correction.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized study included 87 eyes: 40 eyes in the WFG LASIK group and 47 eyes in the SMILE group. Manual cyclotorsion compensation by marking the horizontal axis before SMILE surgery was used for optimized SMILE. Refractive diopter, aberrations, and contrast sensitivity were assessed 3 months postoperatively. The Alpins vector analysis method was used to analyze the astigmatic changes after surgery.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the corrected distance visual acuity and refraction between the two groups after surgery. The fitted curve of surgically induced astigmatism versus target induced astigmatism was described as y = 0.9905 x + 0.0009 in the WFG LASIK group and y = 0.9672 x + 0.0026 in the SMILE group. The percentage of corneal astigmatism axis change within 5 degrees was statistically significant (chi-square test: 10.632, P = .001). HOAs increased in both the WFG LASIK and SMILE groups after surgery (t = -3.655, P = .001, t = -3.784, P = .001, respectively). However, comparison of the changes of HOAs between both groups was not significant (t = -0.565, P = .575). The improvement in contrast sensitivity in the WFG LASIK group was significantly higher than that in the SMILE group.

CONCLUSIONS

WFG LASIK and optimized SMILE can achieve similar outcomes for astigmatism correction. Optimized SMILE with marking could achieve good astigmatism correction, even without an eye tracking system. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(3):166-173.].

Functional Optical Zone and Visual Quality After Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction for High Myopic Astigmatism

Introduction

The aim of this study was to compare the functional optical zone (FOZ) after correction of high myopic astigmatism and low myopic astigmatism by small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).

Methods

In this prospective study, 30 patients who received SMILE for high myopic astigmatism correction (cylinderical diopters ≤ − 2.0D) were enrolled in the high astigmatism group (HA). The control group comprised 40 patients who underwent SMILE for low myopic astigmatism correction (LA; cylinderical diopters ≥ − 0.5D). FOZ was delineated as the area outlined by a change of 0.5D relative to the power at the corneal vertex on the total corneal refractive power map. An ellipse-fitting program (MatLab) was used to calculate some parameters of the FOZ. Visual quality evaluations were also conducted, including evaluations of wavefront aberrations, optical quality, and intraocular scattering, and completion of a quality of life questionnaire. All of the right eyes were analyzed in the study.

Results

The preoperative average treatment spherical equivalent (− 5.77 ± 1.86D vs. − 6.49 ± 1.49D; P = 0.074), lenticule thickness (120.87 ± 23.27 μm vs. 118.53 ± 21.66 μm; P = 0.666), and programmed optical zone (6.58 ± 0.17 mm vs. 6.65 ± 0.18 mm; P = 0.104) were comparable between the HA and LA groups. The long axes (6.99 ± 1.14 mm vs. 5.32 ± 0.61 mm; P < 0.001), short axes (4.66 ± 0.96 mm vs. 4.23 ± 0.64 mm; P = 0.047), and area (25.90 ± 8.03 mm² vs. 17.92 ± 4.36 mm²; P < 0.001) of the FOZ were significantly larger in the HA group than in the LA group. The centration of the FOZ were comparable between the two groups (0.62 ± 0.25 mm vs. 0.70 ± 0.25 mm; P = 0.194). Postoperative spherical aberration was lower in the HA group than in the LA group (0.07 ± 0.05 μm vs. 0.14 ± 0.10 μm; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the ocular scatter index (0.80 ± 0.46 vs. 0.73 ± 0.46; P = 0.447), modulated transfer function (MTF)_cutoff (37.89 ± 9.79 cpd vs. 39.78 ± 7.45 cpd; P = 0.363), and Strehl in two dimensions (Strehl2D) ratio (0.20 ± 0.04 vs. 0.20 ± 0.04; P = 0.363) between the HA group and the LA group. There were no significant differences in the scores on quality of life between the HA and LA groups (45.88 ± 2.15 vs. 45.64 ± 1.84; P = 0.423). Correlation analysis revealed that increase in the spherical aberration was significantly correlated with the long axes, short axes and area in the FOZ in both groups.

Conclusion

With a comparable optical design and attempted correction in SMILE, the eyes with higher myopic astigmatism correction achieved larger FOZ than the eyes with lower myopic astigmatism correction. Consequently, less spherical aberration induction was created after higher myopic astigmatism correction. This result may be associated with less corneal volume sculpted by laser for the higher astigmatism treatment, leading to fewer biochemical responses and les change in corneal aspherity. Good retinal image quality and satisfied quality of life were achieved at a comparable level in both study groups.

Initial Single-Site Experience Using SMILE for the Treatment of Astigmatism in Myopic Eyes and Comparison of Astigmatic Outcomes with Existing Literature

Purpose

To assess a single site’s initial experience with SMILE for the treatment of myopic astigmatism and compare outcomes and vector analysis results with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) results and published literature.

Patients and Methods

Forty-eight eyes (29 patients) with mean preoperative sphere of −5.11 ± 1.31 diopters (D) and cylinder of −1.12 ± 0.60 D underwent SMILE. Visual acuity, refractive, and vector analysis outcomes as well as subjective measures were reported at three and twelve months postoperatively and compared with FDA results and the published literature between 2014 and 2020 involving treatment of patients with mean cylinders of >−0.50 to ≤−3.00 D.

Results

At three and twelve months, 43 and 32 eyes were evaluated, respectively. At twelve months, mean cylinder power was reduced to −0.38 ± 0.38 D with 78.1% achieving ≤±0.50 D. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) ≥20/20 was achieved in 77.4% of eyes by twelve months with 100% achieving ≥20/30 UDVA. No loss of corrected distance visual acuity was observed in eyes seen at twelve months. Correction index (CI) at twelve months was 0.90 indicating overall undercorrection of 10%. Twelve-month CI was 0.96, 0.90, and 0.83 in eyes with preoperative cylinders of <−1.00 D, ≥−1.00 to <−2.00 D, and ≥−2.00 D, respectively. Mean angle of error was −1.58 ± 11.61° ranging from −24.22° to 37.75°.

Conclusion

We found SMILE to be an effective and safe means of achieving spectacle independence and improving visual acuity in patients with myopic astigmatism. SMILE has the potential for improved clinical outcomes with better nomogram guidance and advancements in technique. However, surgeons must be aware of the potential for undercorrection in with-the-rule astigmatism and at higher preoperative cylinders and as well as the potential for overcorrection in against-the-rule and lower preoperative cylinder astigmatism.

[Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) for correction of myopic astigmatism]

PURPOSE

To study the efficacy, stability, safety and predictability of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) at 1 day and 3 months postoperatively for moderate and high myopic astigmatism. To describe a simple and convenient method for detection and manual compensation of cyclotorsion during the procedure.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, a total of 164 eyes from 114 patients over 20 years of age with at least 1.5 diopters (D) of myopic astigmatism were treated by SMILE. Any cyclotorsion was manually compensated by gently rotating the cone to align the horizontal marks on the cornea to the 0° to 180° axis of the reticule after activating the suction.

RESULTS

The mean preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) was -5.3±2.01 D, and the mean cylinder was -2.01±0.67 D. Three months after surgery, a total of 87% of eyes were within±0.50 D of attempted post-operative SE, and 98% of eyes were within±1.00 D. Overall, the predictability of cylinder correction was excellent, with 96.3% of eyes within±1.00 D of attempted post-operative cylinder. The mean postoperative cylinder at three months was -0.3±0.39 D. We noted a slight undercorrection with treatment of high cylinder. However, 82% of eyes achieved postoperative refractive astigmatism less than 0.5 D. 91% of eyes achieved uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) equal to or better than 8/10. 22% of eyes gained one line of visual acuity.

CONCLUSION

SMILE is a predictable and safe technique for the surgical correction of astigmatism. Manual compensation may be an effective approach to improve astigmatic outcomes of SMILE, especially in moderate and high astigmatism.

Comparison between aberration-free transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy and small incision lenticule extraction for correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and aberration-free transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (AF t-PRK) in patients with low to moderate myopic astigmatism, including visual acuity, refractive outcomes, astigmatic vector analysis and corneal aberrometric changes.

METHOD

This retrospective comparative case series study involved 110 right eyes of 110 patients who underwent either SMILE (55 eyes) or AF t-PRK (55 eyes). Visual acuity, manifest refractive error and corneal higher-order aberrations (HOAs) were measured and analyzed at baseline, 1 month and 3 months after operation. The safety and efficacy indices, and vector parameters were also compared.

RESULT

1 month postoperatively, the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and spherical equivalent refraction (SE) were better after SMILE than AF t-PRK (logMAR UDVA,  - 0.03 ± 0.07 and  - 0.006 ± 0.07, P = 0.050; logMAR CDVA,  - 0.06 ± 0.07 and  - 0.03 ± 0.07, P = 0.043; SE,  - 0.04 ± 0.25 and 0.15 ± 0.26, P < 0.001). However, these parameters were comparable between the groups at 3 months after surgery. Residual astigmatism ≤ 0.25 diopters was observed in 74.5% and 90.9% (P = 0.023) of the eyes at one month and in 87.3% and 85.5% (P = 0.781) of the eyes at 3 months after SMILE and AF t-PRK, respectively. There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the vector parameters at 1 month or 3 months after surgery. Coma and total HOAs after SMILE were significantly higher than AF t-PRK (1 month coma, 0.49 ± 0.23 and 0.29 ± 0.15, P < 0.001; 1 month total RMS HOAs, 0.65 ± 0.20 and 0.54 ± 0.14, P = 0.001; 3 months coma, 0.50 ± 0.22 and 0.30 ± 0.17, P < 0.001; 3 months total RMS HOAs, 0.68 ± 0.20 and 0.55 ± 0.17, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this study, both SMILE and AF t-PRK were effective and comparable for correction of low to moderate myopic astigmatism. AF t-PRK group induced less coma and total HOAs than SMILE.

Vector analysis of small incision lenticule extraction and toric implantable collamer lens implantation for astigmatism correction

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and toric implantable collamer lens (TICL) implantation for myopic astigmatism correction using vector analysis.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 171 eyes of 171 patients with cylinder ⩾1.0 diopters (D) were recruited, with 97 eyes underwent SMILE and 74 eyes underwent TICL implantation. Preoperative and 3-months postoperative visual and refractive results were examined. The astigmatism correction, graded by the degree of preoperative cylinder was compared between two groups using vector analysis.

RESULTS

At 3-months postoperatively, the residual cylinder was -0.10 ± 0.21 D in the SMILE group and -0.30 ± 0.32 D in the TCL group (p < 0.05). Furthermore, 98% and 85% of eyes had the cylinder within ±0.5 D in the SMILE and TICL group, respectively. The vector analysis revealed similar target induced astigmatism vector in two groups. However, the difference vector, magnitude of error, angle of error, and index of success were significantly higher (0.30 ± 0.32 D, -0.19 ± 0.25, -2° ± 4.35°, and 0.16 ± 0.17 D, respectively) in the TICL group than the values in the SMILE group (0.10 ± 0.21 D, -0.05 ± 0.20, -0.03° ± 2.13°, and 0.05 ± 0.12, respectively), regardless of the degree of preoperative cylinder (all p < 0.05). For preoperative cylinder < 2.0 D, surgically induced astigmatism vector and correction index in the SMILE group were higher than those in the TICL group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Both SMILE and TICL implantation are effective techniques for myopic astigmatism correction. However, the accuracy of correction in the magnitude and axis of astigmatism with SMILE was better than that achieved with TICL implantation.

Four-year outcomes of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) to correct high myopic astigmatism

AIMS

To evaluate the long-term outcomes of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) in subjects with myopic astigmatism of ≥2.00 dioptres (D).

METHODS

Patients who underwent SMILE 4 years prior with astigmatism ≥2.00 D and ≤1.00 D were assigned to the high astigmatic group (HA group) or the low astigmatic group (LA group), respectively. The visual and refractive results as well as corneal wavefront aberrations were measured.

RESULTS

The preoperative cylinder was -2.47±0.54 D in 43 eyes in the HA group and -0.55±0.28 D in 31 eyes in the LA group. At 4 years, the residual cylinder was -0.31±0.29 D in the HA group and -0.20±0.28 D in the LA group (p=0.088). An uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 was achieved in 88.4% of eyes in the HA group and 93.5% of eyes in the LA group. The efficacy index was 0.99±0.14 and 1.10±0.21 (p=0.025), and the safety index was 1.11±0.20 and 1.22±0.21 in the HA and LA groups, respectively (p=0.012). Eighty-six per cent and 90.3% of eyes were within ±0.50 D of the attempted cylindrical correction in the HA and LA groups, respectively. Vector analysis showed that the magnitude of error was -0.14±0.28 D and -0.05±0.16 D (p=0.085), the angle of error was -0.13±4.48 degrees and -2.57±29.42 degrees (p=0.592), the correction index was 0.94±0.13 and 0.94±0.35 (p=0.959), the index of success was 0.15±0.14 and 0.46±0.62 (p=0.517), and the flattening index was 0.93±0.13 and 0.71±0.59 (p=0.450) in the HA and LA groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that SMILE is effective and safe for correcting high astigmatism. Vector analysis shows a tendency for the undercorrection of astigmatism in subjects with high astigmatism.

Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) for the Correction of Myopia with Astigmatism: Outcomes of the United States Food and Drug Administration Premarket Approval Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

To present outcomes of the United States Food and Drug Administration premarket approval clinical trial of small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for the correction of myopia and astigmatism.

DESIGN

Prospective, multicenter clinical trial.

PARTICIPANTS

The study included 357 eyes of 357 patients treated with SMILE (50 for myopia and 307 for myopia with astigmatism). Preoperative sphere ranged between -1.00 and -10.00 diopters (D), with manifest spherical equivalent (MSE) of up to -11.50 D and refractive cylinder of up to -3.00 D.

METHODS

-Participants were followed up for 12 months. Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), stability of the manifest refraction, and vector analysis of refractive cylinder are presented for the 307 eyes treated for myopia with astigmatism. Adverse events (AEs) are presented for all 357 eyes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Corrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected distance visual acuity, manifest refraction, astigmatic outcomes, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Of the 307 astigmatic eyes enrolled in the study, 304 were treated successfully. In 3 eyes, the procedure was aborted because of intraoperative suction loss. The mean MSE reduced from -5.39±2.30 D at baseline to -0.01±0.24 D at 12 months. Of all eyes, 95.3% were within 0.50 D of emmetropia at 12 months. The percentage of eyes with UDVA of 20/20 or better was 89.0%. No loss of 2 or more lines of CDVA was observed at the 12-month visit. The refractive cylinder reduced from -1.53±0.70 D at baseline to -0.18±0.31 D at 12 months. The mean correction ratio of refractive cylinder was 0.96±0.16 and a slight undercorrection was apparent for higher attempted corrections of astigmatism. Three intraoperative AEs associated with difficult lenticule removal and resultant cap tear occurred, and all resolved without sequelae at postoperative day 1. During the postoperative period, 8 AEs were recorded, but none of them had significant consequences.

CONCLUSIONS

Small-incision lenticule extraction for the treatment of myopia and astigmatism was safe and effective, and the reported AEs had no significant impact on visual acuity. Slight undercorrection of refractive cylinder requires further attention.

Outcomes of Small Incision Lenticule Extraction for Myopic Astigmatic Treatment

BACKGROUND:

Some studies have shown that there is a certain rotation of the eye in the sitting and lying position of the patient. The Visumax system used for the Refractive Lenticule Extraction-Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (ReLEx SMILE) surgery lacks the rotation of eye control function. So, is the ReLEx SMILE surgery for patients with astigmatism safe and effective?

AIM:

To evaluate the outcomes of the ReLEx SMILE surgery in cases with myopic astigmatism.

METHODS:

The case series included 120 eyes with myopic astigmatism undergoing ReLEx SMILE surgery from January 2018 to November 2018. The distribution of patients for two subgroups based on the power of astigmatism, low astigmatic group (≤ 1.50D) and high astigmatic group (> 1.50D). All patients were measured UDVA, CDVA, refractive sphere, astigmatism and sphere equivalent before and after surgery one week, one month and three months carefully. The astigmatic correction was evaluated by the vectorial analysis Alpins.

RESULTS:

The mean efficacy index of the low and high astigmatic group was 1.035 and 1.082 (respectively); the mean safety index was 1.113 and 1.215 (respectively). 93% of eyes in the low astigmatic group had an angle of error (AE) within ± 15 degrees and 100% in high astigmatic group. There was an undercorrection in astigmatic treatment. No complications during and after surgery were recorded.

CONCLUSION:

ReLEx SMILE surgery for the myopic astigmatic treatment was safe and effective.

Unwanted Astigmatism and High-order Aberrations One Year after Excimer and Femtosecond Corneal Surgery

SIGNIFICANCE

Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) is advanced as the most minimally invasive and least traumatic corneal procedure for correcting refractive errors using a single laser. Although SMILE obtains similar results to femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) with spherical myopia, it has deficiencies in astigmatism correction.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare refractive outcomes and high-order aberrations (HOAs) between SMILE and femtosecond LASIK corneal procedures at 1 year post-operative.

METHODS

Ninety-two patients (181 eyes) with myopia/myopic astigmatism underwent either SMILE (group 1) or femtosecond LASIK (group 2). The refractive target was to achieve emmetropia in all cases. Data were analyzed to determine significance of change in refraction and HOAs. Furthermore, astigmatism was subjected to vector analysis using the Thibos (calculation of change, Δ, in J0 and J45 values) and Alpins (calculation of difference, ΔC, between target-induced astigmatism [TIA] and surgically induced astigmatism) methods.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients (89 eyes) from group 1 and 47 patients (92 eyes) from group 2 completed the study. The main significant (P ≤ .001) findings were as follows: (a) residual astigmatism was greater in group 1; (b) group 1, ΔJ0 = 1.015J0 + 0.040 (R = 0.861), ΔJ45 = 1.082J45 + 0.019 (R = 0.792), ΔC = 0.401TIA + 0.323 (R = 0.489), and mean spherical aberration increased from -0.003 (SD, ±0.059; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.015 to 0.009) to 0.028 μm (SD, ±0.041; 95% CI, -0.037 to -0.020); and (c) group 2, ΔJ0 = 0.952J0 - 0.005 (R = 0.921), ΔJ45 = 0.962J45 - 0.002 (R = 0.923), ΔC = 0.187TIA + 0.101 (R = 0.272), mean coma reduced from 0.114 (SD, ±0.087; 95% CI, 0.096 to 0.132) to 0.077 μm (SD, ±0.059; 95% CI, 0.065 to 0.089), and trefoil from 0.089 (SD, ±0.049; 95% CI, 0.079 to 0.0990) to 0.056 μm (SD, ±0.047; 95% CI, 0.046 to 0.066).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with SMILE, femtosecond LASIK offered better precision in the overall control of astigmatism and HOAs.

Future Developments in SMILE: Higher Degree of Myopia and Hyperopia

Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) is a novel 1-step refractive procedure with femtosecond laser for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism. Although it has shown good clinical results in efficacy, safety, predictability, and stability, there are still some concerns. In this study, we review the published clinical outcomes of high myopia correction and exploration in hyperopia correction. Results have suggested that SMILE has acceptable outcomes in correction for high myopia <10.0 diopters (D), and it is a feasible and effective procedure for the treatment of hyperopia. However, it is unsuitable for the treatment of extremely high myopia because there is undercorrection and regression as existed in laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), and compound hyperopic astigmatism currently could not be corrected either. More technical and clinical improvements are required to make SMILE competitive.

Astigmatism Correction Using SMILE

Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) was introduced in the recent decade for the treatment of myopia and myopic astigmatism. This flap-free technique has a high efficacy and safety profile and also carries potential advantages over laser in situ keratomileusis such as a better corneal biomechanical stability, reduction in dry eyes rate, and the avoidance of flap complications. However, there have been concerns regarding the precision of astigmatism correction that undercorrection has been reported to be apparent. Various factors that affect astigmatism correction have been identified in the literature. The purpose of this review is to discuss the factors that affect astigmatism correction in SMILE and several techniques to improve the refractive outcomes.

Wavefront-Guided LASIK Has Comparable Ocular and Corneal Aberrometric Outcomes but Better Visual Acuity Outcomes Than SMILE in Myopic Eyes

PURPOSE

To compare ocular and corneal aberrometric outcomes of wavefront-guided (WFG) LASIK and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).

METHODS

This was a prospective, interventional study where 48 eyes (24 patients) underwent SMILE (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) and 58 eyes (29 patients) underwent WFG LASIK (Abbott Medical Optics, Abbott Park, IL). Visual acuity and ocular surface disease index were assessed preoperatively and 1 and 3 months postoperatively. Corneal topography and anterior aberrations were assessed with the Pentacam (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) and iTrace (Tracey Technologies, Houston, TX), respectively. Ocular aberrations were also assessed with the iTrace.

RESULTS

Safety and efficacy indexes of WFG LASIK (0.99 and 1.01, respectively) and SMILE (1.01 and 1.13, respectively) were comparable, although WFG LASIK was better (P < .0001). At 3 months postoperatively, all eyes in both groups achieved an uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better. Further, 74.14% and 45.83% of the eyes in the WFG LASIK and SMILE groups, respectively, achieved uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/16 (P = .003). The Pentacam reported an increase in root mean square of higher order aberrations (diameter of 4 mm and 6th order Zernike) and coma with a decrease in spherical aberration in both groups (P < .001). Corneal aberrations from the iTrace also did not yield any definitive differences between the treatments. However, changes in ocular aberrations were clinically insignificant at 3 months after both treatments. The ocular surface disease index increased mildly after WFG LASIK (P > .05) but was unchanged after SMILE.

CONCLUSIONS

WFG LASIK and SMILE had similar aberrometric outcomes but WFG LASIK had better postoperative visual acuity. Surgeon experience, internal aberrations, small pupil size, and wound healing can enable similar outcomes in both procedures. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(8):527-532.].

Uncorrected visual acuity, postoperative astigmatism, and dry eye symptoms are major determinants of patient satisfaction: a comparative, real-life study of femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis and small incision lenticule extraction for myopia

Purpose

To compare factors affecting patient satisfaction after femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for myopia in the real-life situation study.

Methods

The SMILE group included 100 eyes (51 patients) and the FS-LASIK group 200 eyes (102 patients). In addition to clinical examination, dry eye symptoms and patient satisfaction with far and near vision were reported and graded on the visual analog scale preoperatively and one month after the operation. Case–control pairs were selected for the SMILE patients from FS-LASIK-treated patients to ensure the homogeneity in spherical equivalent refraction, preoperative dry eye, and visual satisfaction.

Results

Eighty percent of SMILE eyes and 83% of FS-LASIK eyes achieved an uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better. Predictability (±0.5 D of mean target spherical equivalent refraction) was 91% in SMILE and 93.5% in FS-LASIK. No eyes lost two or more Snellen lines of corrected distance visual acuity. Based on case–control pairs, dry eye symptoms remained the same after one month in the FS-LASIK-treated eyes (P=0.87) but decreased in the SMILE-treated eyes (P=0.01) compared with the preoperative situation. Patient satisfaction with far vision improved significantly in both groups (P<0.001), but satisfaction with near vision improved significantly only in FS-LASIK (P<0.001) and not in SMILE (P=0.58). There was more postoperative astigmatism in SMILE in comparison with FS-LASIK (P=0.002).

Conclusions

In a real-life situation, patients with preoperative dry eye experience were often directed to the SMILE operation, which resulted in beneficial decrease in their dry eye symptoms. Patient satisfaction with far vision decreased with increasing dry eye symptoms and postoperative astigmatism in both SMILE- and FS-LASIK-treated emmetropic patients. Safety, efficacy, and predictability were comparable in both treatments.

Three-year outcomes of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for myopia and myopic astigmatism

Aims

To compare long-term clinical outcomes following small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for myopia and myopic astigmatism correction.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we enrolled a total of 101 patients (101 eyes) who underwent SMILE or FS-LASIK 3 years prior. Measured parameters included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), manifest refraction and corneal wavefront aberrations.

Results

No significant differences in patient characteristics were found between the two groups. At the 3-year follow-up, UDVA was better than or equal to 20/20 in 90% and 85% (p=0.540) of the eyes; the efficacy indexes were 1.05±0.19 and 1.01±0.21 in the SMILE and FS-LASIK groups, respectively (p=0.352). Safety indexes were 1.19±0.17 and 1.15±0.20 in the SMILE and FS-LASIK groups, respectively (p=0.307). Eighty per cent and 65% of eyes were within ±0.50 D of the attempted spherical equivalent correction after SMILE and FS-LASIK, respectively (p=0.164). Vector analysis revealed no significant differences in astigmatic correction between the two groups (p>0.05). Surgically induced spherical aberration was higher in the FS-LASIK group than in the SMILE group (p<0.001).

Conclusion

Long-term follow-up analysis suggested that both SMILE and FS-LASIK were safe and equally effective for myopic and astigmatic correction.

Vector Analysis of the Effects of FS-LASIK and Toric ICL for Moderate to High Astigmatism Correction

Purpose

To estimate the treatment effectiveness of femtosecond-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and Toric implantable collamer lens (Toric ICL) for moderate and high astigmatism via vector analysis.

Materials and Methods

The study involved 44 eyes from 44 patients who had a preoperative refractive cylinder ≥1.0 diopters (D) and underwent bilateral FS-LASIK or Toric ICL surgery. The examinations included corrected distance visual acuity measurement and subjective refraction before and 3 months after surgery. The astigmatic changes were estimated using vector analysis.

Results

No statistically significant differences were found in cylindrical refraction and percentage of spherical equivalent within 0 D, ±0.50 D, ±1.00 D, and ±1.50 D between the FS-LASIK and Toric ICL groups at 3 months after surgery. The parameters of the vector analysis included intended refractive correction, surgically induced refractive correction, error vector, correction ratio, error ratio, error of magnitude, and error of angle, with no significant differences between the groups. However, error ratio the of the off-axis correction in the FS-LASIK and Toric ICL groups was 4.11 ± 3.02 and 8.11 ± 3.82, respectively, and the difference was significant (t = −2.46, p=0.02).

Conclusion

Both FS-LASIK and Toric ICL were effective for correcting moderate and high astigmatism, although Toric ICL might produce a larger error of angle than FS-LASIK when an off-axis correction occurs.

Initial Single-Site Surgical Experience with SMILE: A Comparison of Results to FDA SMILE, and the Earliest and Latest Generation of LASIK

Introduction

The primary objective was to show our initial surgical single-site experience with small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) after the official enrollment in March 2017 following Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for simple myopia in late 2016 in the United States and, subsequently, compare our results to the earliest and most advanced generation of excimer platforms for laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery.

Methods

This was a retrospective single-site study of 68 eyes from 35 patients who had SMILE surgery. The patients’ preoperative and postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), manifest sphere, manifest cylinder, intraoperative complications, and preoperative and postoperative visual symptoms were collected. We compared our findings to the results from the FDA SMILE study, and to the three earliest (1999–2000) and three of the most updated (2013–2016) platforms for LASIK.

Results

The cumulative UDVA was 20/20 and 20/40 or better in 74% and 100% of patients, respectively. The intended target refraction was within ± 0.5 and ± 1.00 D in 80% and 93% of cases, respectively. The prevalence of dry eyes decreased by nearly half from 1-week to the 6-month postoperative interval. Patients noted improvement in glare (17%), halos (17%), fluctuation (25%), and depth perception (8%) at the 6-month interval compared to preoperative levels.

Conclusions

This study’s findings are consistent with current SMILE reports. Notably, the results are superior to the earliest generation of LASIK, however inferior to the latest excimer platforms. SMILE does meet the efficacy and safety criteria met by FDA; however, there is a definite need for further improvement to reach the superior refractive outcomes produced by the latest generation of LASIK platforms.

Clinical Outcomes of SMILE With a Triple Centration Technique and Corneal Wavefront-Guided Transepithelial PRK in High Astigmatism

PURPOSE

To comparatively investigate the clinical outcomes, vector parameters, and corneal aberrations of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) with a triple centration technique and corneal wavefront-guided transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for the correction of high astigmatism.

METHODS

This retrospective, comparative case series study included 89 eyes (89 patients) that received treatment for myopia with high astigmatism (≥ 2.50 diopters) using SMILE with a triple centration technique (SMILE group; 45 eyes) and corneal wavefront-guided transepithelial PRK (transepithelial PRK group; 44 eyes). Visual acuity measurement, manifest refraction, slit-lamp examination, autokeratometry, corneal topography, and evaluation of corneal wavefront aberration were performed preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery. The safety, efficacy, vector parameters, and corneal aberrations at 6 months after surgery were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

At 6 months after surgery, the transepithelial PRK and SMILE groups exhibited comparable mean uncorrected distance visual acuities (-0.06 ± 0.07 and -0.05 ± 0.07 logMAR, respectively), safety, efficacy, and predictability of refractive and visual outcomes. There was a slight but statistically significant difference in the correction index between the transepithelial PRK and SMILE groups (0.96 ± 0.11 and 0.91 ± 0.10, respectively). Whereas the transepithelial PRK group exhibited increased corneal spherical aberration and significantly reduced corneal coma and trefoil, no changes in aberrometric values were noted in the SMILE group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both SMILE with a triple centration technique and corneal wavefront-guided transepithelial PRK are effective and provide predictable outcomes for the correction of high myopic astigmatism, although slight undercorrection was observed in the SMILE group. The triple centration technique was helpful in astigmatism correction by SMILE. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(3):156-163.].

Comparative Analysis of the Clinical Outcomes of SMILE and Wavefront-Guided LASIK in Low and Moderate Myopia

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and wavefront-guided LASIK (WFG LASIK) in eyes with low and moderate myopia.

METHODS

This was a prospective, comparative study enrolling 110 eyes with low and moderate myopia (spherical equivalent ≤ 6.00 diopters [D]). Two groups were differentiated according to the surgical technique used: the WFG LASIK group included 51 eyes (51 patients) undergoing WFG LASIK using the STAR S4IR excimer laser and the iDesign aberrometer (Abbott Medical Optics, Abbott Park, IL) and the SMILE group included 59 eyes (59 patients) undergoing SMILE with the VisuMax platform (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). Visual, refractive, aberrometric, and contrast sensitivity outcomes were evaluated during a 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Mean efficacy index was 0.92 ± 0.11 and 1.12 ± 0.17 in the SMILE and WFG LASIK groups, respectively (P < .001). Postoperative spherical equivalent was within ±0.50 D in 81.54% and 98% of eyes in the SMILE and WFG LASIK groups (P < .001), and postoperative cylinder was 0.50 or below in 84.7% and 100% of eyes, respectively (P = .038). Mean safety index was 0.98 ± 0.08 and 1.20 ± 0.14 in the SMILE and WFG LASIK groups (P < .001), with losses of lines of corrected distance visual acuity in 6.8% and 0.0% of eyes, respectively. Higher increase in higher order (P < .001) and coma (P < .001) root mean square and higher decrease in contrast sensitivity for 6, 12, and 18 cycles/degree (P ≤ .001) were observed after SMILE.

CONCLUSIONS

SMILE and WFG LASIK are efficacious and safe procedures for the correction of low and moderate myopia, but WFG LASIK allows a more predictable outcome and better aberrometric control. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(5):298-304.].

Clinical outcomes of Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy to treat low to moderate myopic astigmatism

Background

To evaluate the refractive and visual outcomes of Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (TransPRK) in the treatment of low to moderate myopic astigmatism.

Methods

This retrospective study enrolled a total of 47 eyes that had undergone Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy. Preoperative cylinder diopters ranged from − 0.75D to − 2.25D (mean − 1.11 ± 0.40D), and the sphere was between − 1.50D to − 5.75D. Visual outcomes and vector analysis of astigmatism that included error ratio (ER), correction ratio (CR), error of magnitude (EM) and error of angle (EA) were evaluated.

Results

At 6 months after TransPRK, all eyes had an uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better, no eyes lost ≥2 lines of corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA), and 93.6% had residual refractive cylinder within ±0.50D of intended correction. On vector analysis, the mean correction ratio for refractive cylinder was 1.03 ± 0.30. The mean error magnitude was − 0.04 ± 0.36. The mean error of angle was 0.44° ± 7.42°and 80.9% of eyes had axis shift within ±10°. The absolute astigmatic error of magnitude was statistically significantly correlated with the intended cylinder correction (r = 0.48, P < 0.01).

Conclusions

TransPRK showed safe, effective and predictable results in the correction of low to moderate astigmatism and myopia.

Refractive lenticule extraction small incision lenticule extraction: A new refractive surgery paradigm

Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), a variant of refractive lenticule extraction technology is becoming increasingly popular, as a flapless and minimally invasive form of laser vision correction (LVC) for the treatment of myopia and myopic astigmatism. This review aims at summarizing the principles, surgical technique, and clinical outcomes in terms of visual and refractive results, safety, efficacy, postoperative dry eye, aberrations, and biomechanics of SMILE and its comparison with other conventional techniques of LVC, such as laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Recent advancements in the laser frequency and energy delivery patterns, instrumentation, and surgical techniques have shown significant improvement in the visual recovery and outcomes after SMILE, compared to the initial results published by Sekundo and Shah et al. Most of the recently published literature on long-term outcomes of SMILE shows excellent stability of the procedure, especially for higher myopia. In terms of the postoperative dry eye, SMILE shows a clear advantage over LASIK as numerous studies have shown significant differences about the Schirmer's, Tear film break up time, corneal sensitivity, and corneal nerve regeneration to be better following SMILE compared to LASIK. There is some evidence that since the Bowman's membrane (BM) and the anterior lamellae remain intact after SMILE, this may be a potential advantage for corneal biomechanics over LASIK and PRK where the BM is either severed or ablated, respectively, however, the data on biomechanics are inconclusive at present. Overall, this procedure has proved to be promising, delivering equivalent, or better visual and refractive results to LASIK and providing clear advantage in terms of being a flapless, minimally invasive procedure with minimal pain and postoperative discomfort thus offering high patient satisfaction.

Effect of the Learning Curve on Visual and Refractive Outcomes of Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of the learning curve for small-incision lenticule extraction during the first 2 years of experience.

METHODS

Small-incision lenticule extraction was performed using the 500-kHz VisuMax femtosecond laser (Carl Zeiss Meditec) by the same surgeon. The initial 100 patients since the surgeon started operating independently were considered as group 1; the recent 100 patients were considered as group 2. The same laser settings and technique were used. The visual and refractive outcomes were compared between groups at postoperative 1 week and 6 months. Vector analysis was performed for eyes with astigmatic correction.

RESULTS

Two hundred right eyes of 200 patients were included. Age, preoperative corrected visual acuity, manifest refraction, and central corneal thickness were similar between groups (P ≤ 0.154). Postoperatively, the efficacy index at 1 week was better in group 2 (group 1: 0.85 ± 0.16 vs. group 2: 0.91 ± 0.10, P = 0.019) but was similar between groups at 6 months (group 1: 0.91 ± 0.14 vs. group 2: 0.94 ± 0.08, P = 0.181). The safety index was higher in group 2 at 1 week (group 1: 0.93 ± 0.10 vs. group 2: 0.95 ± 0.08, P = 0.045) and 6 months postoperatively (group 1: 0.97 ± 0.07 vs. group 2: 0.99 ± 0.03, P = 0.011). Vector analysis showed that postoperative residual astigmatism and misalignment of astigmatic correction were lower in group 2 than in group 1 (P ≤ 0.039) at 1 week and 6 months. The duration of docking and that of lenticule extraction was shorter in group 2 (P ≤ 0.034).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that faster visual recovery, better safety profile, and more accurate astigmatic correction could be attained with increasing surgical experience.

Two-years results of small-incision lenticule extraction and wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis for Myopia

PURPOSE

To compare the 2-years visual and refractive outcomes between small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) in eyes with myopia and myopic astigmatism.

METHODS

Our retrospective case-control study examined 30 eyes of 30 patients with the manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) of -3.71 ± 1.83 dioptres (D) who underwent SMILE and 30 eyes of 30 patients with MRSE of -3.81 ± 1.40 D who underwent wavefront-guided LASIK. We assessed the 2-years clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution (LogMAR)-corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was -0.23 ± 0.07 in the SMILE group and -0.24 ± 0.07 in the wavefront-guided LASIK group 2 years postoperatively (p = 0.82). Logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution-uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) was -0.18 ± 0.09 and -0.15 ± 0.11 (p = 0.30, respectively). In the SMILE and wavefront-guided LASIK groups 2 years postoperatively, 100% and 73% of eyes, respectively, were within 0.5 D of the prompted MRSE correction (p = 0.005). Changes in the MRSE of -0.10 ± 0.30 D and -0.23 ± 0.51 D occurred from 3 months to 2 years (p = 0.40, respectively). We found a significant correlation between myopic regression and the changes in the keratometric readings from 3 months to 2 years after wavefront-guided LASIK (r = -0.48, p = 0.002), but not after SMILE (r = -0.004, p = 0.90).

CONCLUSION

Small-incision lenticule extraction offers better refractive outcomes than wavefront-guided LASIK during a 2-years follow-up for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism.