Chung's swing technique: a new technique for small-incision lenticule extraction

Modified Technique for Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction: Ye's Swing Technique

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the lenticule integrity and refractive outcomes of a new technique, Ye's swing technique, during small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled patients who underwent the SMILE procedure using a modified technique for lenticule dissection. Per the standard SMILE procedure, the cap cut was opened using a hook, and an anterior dissection was performed with a counterclockwise swing, from 8 to 12 o'clock. A posterior dissection was then performed by swinging counterclockwise, leaving a thin band of the peripheral rim undissected, from 8 to 4 o'clock. The counterclockwise swing was continued to separate the edges of the rim from 4 to 12 o'clock, after which microforceps were used to extract the lenticules. The primary outcome measures were safety and lenticule integrity at the end of the surgery, and the secondary outcome measure was efficacy. Changes in the ocular parameters from the preoperative visit to 1 month postoperative, including uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity, manifest refraction, lenticule quality, and lenticule residual, were assessed using optical coherence tomography.

RESULTS

A total of 246 patients (490 eyes) with myopia and myopic astigmatism were included in the present study. The dissected lenticules ranged in size from 52 to 148 µm. Postoperatively, the lenticule was completely and successfully extracted in all cases. There was no incisional edge tearing during lenticule separation.

CONCLUSIONS

Ye's swing technique is a safe and effective procedure for lenticule dissection and refractive outcomes. We have now adopted this technique as our routine method for performing the SMILE procedure.

Monson small-incision lenticule extraction fixation device

Small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) is a stromal based, flapless, minimally invasive form of laser vision correction for the treatment of myopia and myopic astigmatism. SMILE surgery is a more technical procedure compared with other refractive surgeries and generally has a longer skill mastery acquisition period. Thus far, no new stabilization devices or techniques have been proposed. To rectify this, a new distal corneal countertraction device for SMILE surgery, the Monson SMILE Fixation Device, is introduced. This device provides reliable corneal and globe stabilization during delamination and lenticular dissection. It may minimize tissue distortion and manipulation, simplify lenticule dissection, and may decrease operation times and improve cosmesis. Countertraction can also easily be adjusted throughout the procedure.

Research Progress on Morphological Changes and Surgery-related Parameters of Corneal Cap in Small Incision Lenticule Extraction

Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) is an "all-in-one" surgical method for refractive correction. An advantage of the SMILE over traditional surgery is that it depends on the corneal cap's design. This review discusses the morphological evaluation of the corneal cap, selection of the corneal cap with different thickness and diameters, influence of the corneal cap design on retreatment, and management of corneal cap-related complications. The following points should be recognized to define the correct morphology and design of the operation-related parameters of the corneal cap during SMILE: (1) the thickness and diameter of the corneal cap are predictable and influence postoperative visual quality, (2) the change in anterior surface curvature of the corneal cap should be considered in the design of nomogram value, (3) for patients with moderate myopic correction, early visual quality is better with a 6.9-mm than with a 7.5-mm diameter corneal cap, (4) there is no significant difference in visual quality or biomechanics among corneal caps with different thickness; (5) primary corneal cap thickness plays an important role in the SMILE retreatment, (6) a 7.78-mm diameter corneal cap has a greater risk of suction loss than a 7.60-mm diameter corneal cap, (6) if suction loss occurs when lenticular scanning exceeds 10%, then SMILE can be continued by changing corneal cap thickness, (7) preventive collagen cross-linking with SMILE caps are 90-120 μm thick and 7-7.8 mm in diameter, and (8) properly treating SMILE-related complications ensures better postoperative results. The data presented herein shall deepen the understanding of the importance of the corneal cap during SMILE and provide diversified analysis for personalized operational design of corneal cap parameters.

Cap recovery technique and double-edge sign during small-incision lenticule extraction

PURPOSE

To describe a new technique for identifying the upper (cap) interface during small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). If the lower interface is dissected first it can be challenging to locate the cap interface and complete the lenticule separation.

SETTING

London Vision Clinic, London, United Kingdom.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis.

METHODS

The routine protocol was to open the primary small incision and separate the cap interface, followed by the lenticule interface. If the lenticule interface was dissected first, the modified Sinskey tip was inserted through the superior end of the incision, tangentially along the cap edge interface and then rotated anteriorly to engage the edge of the lenticule adherent to the underside of the cap. The Sinskey tip is then drawn inferiorly, creating a pocket of separation of the lenticule from the cap, enabling the dissection bulb and spatula to be used to dissect the upper interface.

RESULTS

A total of 629 consecutive eyes undergoing SMILE using the VisuMax femtosecond laser were included. The routine surgical protocol (cap interface first) was followed in 88% of eyes and the lenticule interface first in 12% of eyes. The lenticule was extracted successfully in all cases. Uncorrected distance visual acuity at the 1-day postoperative visit was 20/25 or better in 81% of the cap interface first group and 86% of the lenticule interface first group.

CONCLUSIONS

The visual results using this cap recovery technique were equivalent to those when a routine SMILE dissection was performed. The technique allowed surgeons to rescue more challenging cases where identifying the different interfaces was difficult. This technique meant that separating the lenticule interface first should no longer be considered a complication of SMILE.

Corneal lenticule extraction assisted by a low-energy femtosecond laser

A lenticule of intrastromal corneal tissue was cut together with 2 small incisions of 3.0 mm using a low-energy femtosecond laser system, FEMTO LDV Z8; 1 incision led to the posterior plane and 1 to the anterior, allowing dissection of the lenticule. When needed, recentering of the treatment area was possible without repeating the docking stage. Five eyes were operated, and a complete dissection and removal of the lenticule was achieved in all cases without any intraoperative complications. In addition, at postoperative day 1, all patients had a clear cornea. In conclusion, guided lenticule extraction using a low-energy femtosecond laser was a promising and easy procedure.

Inverse centripetal dissection: A rescue technique for mis-dissected lenticule during SMILE

Management of mis-dissected lenticule during Small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) is technically challenging and might be experienced more by novice surgeons especially in eyes with low refractive errors and thin lenticules. Presently, we describe a rescue method of inverse centripetal dissection (ICD) to manage mis-dissected lenticules. In this technique, after inadvertent dissection of posterior plane prior to anterior plane, the double-ended SMILE dissector is rotated along its shaft axis clockwise from the left upper margin of the mis-dissected lenticule to form an inversely folded lenticule which is then subsequently dissected centripetally till midline. This is then extracted by performing lenticulorrhexis with a pair of microforceps. We performed this technique in 10 eyes of 10 patients and the lenticule extraction was accomplished successfully in all eyes. At six months follow-up, the uncorrected visual acuity was 20/20 with a clear interface in all eyes. The ICD approach might serve as a useful rescue technique for managing mis-dissected lenticules.

Advances in refractive corneal lenticule extraction

Refractive errors are the leading cause of reversible visual impairment worldwide. In addition to the desired spectacle independence, refractive procedures can improve quality of life, working ability, and daily working performance. Refractive corneal lenticule extraction (RCLE) is a relatively new technique, dependent only on a femtosecond laser (FS). This leads to potential benefits over laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) including a quicker recovery of dry eye disease, a larger functional optical zone, and no flap-related complications. SMILE, available with the VisuMax FS (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany), is the most established RCLE application, offering visual and refractive outcomes comparable to LASIK. SmartSight (SCHWIND eye-tech-solutions GmbH, Kleinostheim, Germany) and CLEAR (Ziemer Ophthalmic Systems AG, Port, Switzerland) are two new RCLE applications that received Conformité Européenne (CE) approval in 2020. In this article, we review refractive and visual outcomes, advantages, and disadvantages of RCLE and also report on the latest advances in RCLE systems.

Complications of small incision lenticule extraction

The procedure of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) was introduced in 2011, and since then there has been an increase in the number of cases undergoing this procedure worldwide. The surgery has a learning curve and may be associated with problems in the intraoperative and postoperative periods. The intraoperative problems during SMILE surgery include the loss of suction, the occurrence of altered or irregular opaque bubble layer and black spots, difficulty in lenticular dissection and extraction, cap perforation, incision-related problems, and decentered ablation. Most of the postoperative problems are similar as in other laser refractive procedures, but with decreased incidence. The identification of risk factors, clinical features, and management of complications of SMILE help to obtain optimum refractive outcomes.

Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) in Patients with Corneal Guttae

Purpose

To report 12-month results of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) in the treatment of myopia with corneal guttae (CG).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 12 eyes from six patients who had preoperative CG without clinical sign of Fuchs’ endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) and had SMILE for correction of myopia. Preoperative and 12-month postoperative measurements included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), spherical equivalent (SE), endothelial cell density (ECD), the coefficient of variation (CV), the percentage of hexagonal cells (HEX), and central corneal thickness (CCT). The changes in ECD, CV, HEX, and CCT after SMILE were subjected to statistical analysis.

Results

Twelve months postoperatively, the mean SE was −0.10 ± 0.32 D and all eyes had a UDVA of 0 logMAR or better. No eyes developed corneal edema or other complication during the follow-up period. There were no significant changes in the ECD, CV, or HEX at 12 months (all p>0.05).

Conclusion

SMILE yielded improvement in visual acuity and no adverse effects to corneal endothelial cells were found when correcting myopia or myopic astigmatism in patients with CG. However, studies with a greater number of patients and longer follow-up periods are needed to establish the long-term outcomes and safety.

Comparison of anterior segment changes after femtosecond laser LASIK and SMILE using a dual rotating Scheimpflug analyzer

Background

To compare the changes in the anterior segment after femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) using a dual rotating Scheimpflug (DRS) analyzer (Galilei®; Ziemer Ophthalmology, Port, Switzerland).

Methods

A total of 218 eyes of 109 patients who underwent FS-LASIK or SMILE for myopic correction were retrospectively studied. Ninety-eight eyes of 49 patients who underwent FS-LASIK were compared to 120 eyes of 60 patients treated with SMILE. A DRS analyzer was used for preoperative and 6-month postoperative anterior segment analyses. Measured variables included the central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), anterior and posterior keratometry (K), anterior and posterior best-fit sphere radius, and maximum posterior elevation (MPE).

Results

After the procedure, the amount of CCT decrease was higher in the SMILE group than in the FS-LASIK group, but it was not statistically significant. The MPE was significantly increased after both procedures (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001 in the FS-LASIK and SMILE groups, respectively), with the amount of elevation being higher after FS-LASIK than after SMILE even though it was not statistically significant. And there was a significant change in the steep and average posterior K in the FS-LASIK group (p = 0.006 and 0.001, respectively), but not in the SMILE group.

Conclusions

Regarding changes in the MPE and posterior K, changes in the posterior corneal surface were greater after FS-LASIK than after SMILE.

Trial registration

The trial registration number: KCT0003628. Date of registration: 15 March 2019.

Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) techniques: patient selection and perspectives

Refractive lenticule extraction is becoming the procedure of choice for the management of myopia and myopic astigmatism owing to its precision, biomechanical stability, and better ocular surface. It has similar safety, efficacy, and predictability as femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and is associated with better patient satisfaction. The conventional technique of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) involves docking, femtosecond laser application, lenticule dissection from the surrounding stroma, and extraction. It has a steep learning curve compared to conventional flap-based corneal ablative procedures, and the surgical technique may be challenging especially for a novice surgeon. As SMILE is gaining worldwide acceptance among refractive surgeons, different modifications of the surgical technique have been described to ease the process of lenticule extraction and minimize complications. Good patient selection is essential to ensure optimal patient satisfaction, and novice surgeons should avoid cases with low myopia (thin refractive lenticules), difficult orbital anatomy, high astigmatism, or uncooperative, anxious patients to minimize complications. A comprehensive MEDLINE search was performed using “small incision lenticule extraction,” “SMILE,” and “refractive lenticule extraction” as keywords, and we herein review the patient selection for SMILE and various surgical techniques of SMILE with their pros and cons. With increasing surgeon experience, a standard technique is expected to evolve that may be performed in all types of cases with optimal outcomes and minimal adverse effects.

Development of the Modified Lenticule Edge Dissection Technique for Small Incision Lenticule Extraction

PURPOSE

To identify and develop an efficient technique to separate the lenticule edge in small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).

METHODS

Four hundred eyes of 400 consecutive patients with myopia assigned to receive SMILE were included in the study. Eyes with poor-quality laser treatment were excluded, and the second eye of the same patient was included. Two skilled surgeons performed SMILE in the Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center. Each surgeon was allotted 200 patients. One surgeon used the modified technique, whereas the other surgeon used the conventional technique to identify and separate the lenticule edge. All intraoperative complications associated with lenticule edge dissection and the duration of lenticule dissection were recorded.

RESULTS

There were 200 eyes each in the modified technique group (group A) and the conventional technique group (group B). The mean lenticule dissection time was 49 ± 10 seconds in group A and 59 ± 43 seconds in group B (P = 0.002). Within 70 seconds, lenticule dissection was completely finished in 96.5% of eyes in group A and 86.0% in group B. Difficult lenticule dissection was experienced in 3.5% (7/200) of cases in group A and in 14.0% (28/200) of cases in group B.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified lenticule edge dissection technique of SMILE is simpler and faster in identifying the correct dissection plane. It is efficient in reducing surgical manipulation, shortening the learning curve required for lenticule dissection, and allows surgeons to perform SMILE more safely and efficiently.