Retreatment strategies following Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE): In vivo tissue responses

Comparative Study of Primary SMILE, SMILE Enhancement, and Femtosecond Laser-Assisted LASIK on Higher Order Aberrations and Corneal Densitometry

PURPOSE

To compare differences in corneal densitometry (CD) and higher order aberrations (HOAs) in eyes that underwent small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for the treatment of myopia and myopic astigmatism at postoperative months 3, 6, and 12, and to evaluate their changes in a separate cohort of eyes after SMILE enhancement.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, paired-eye clinical trial, consecutive eligible participants were randomized to undergo SMILE or FS-LASIK in either eye. Main outcome measures were CD and HOAs preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. A separate cohort of consecutive patients who had SMILE and underwent enhancement were also included for comparison.

RESULTS

For CD, no significant differences were found between SMILE and FS-LASIK up to month 12. For HOA measured by wavefront aberrometry, both SMILE and FS-LASIK had an increase in total root mean square (RMS) HOAs, spherical aberration (SA), and vertical coma up to month 12. SMILE had an additional increase in vertical quatrefoil, and FS-LASIK had an increase in horizontal coma at month 12. FS-LASIK had higher SA than SMILE, whereas SMILE had higher vertical quatrefoil than FS-LASIK at month 12. Central and posterior zone CD had significantly decreased after SMILE enhancement compared to after primary SMILE up to 2 years after enhancement. RMS HOAs, lower order aberrations, and SA were all increased after SMILE enhancement compared to after primary SMILE.

CONCLUSIONS

SMILE induced lower SA but higher vertical quatrefoil than FS-LASIK at 1 year. Both SMILE and FS-LASIK had similar increases in RMS HOAs and vertical coma up to 1 year. There were no differences in CD between both groups. SMILE enhancement additionally had decreased central and posterior CD but greater RMS HOAs and SA compared to primary SMILE. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(5):e291-e303.].

Photorefractive Keratectomy Enhancement (PRK) After Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE)

Purpose

To determine rates of enhancement and visual prognosis following photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) enhancement of small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).

Patients and Methods

This retrospective, single-site study reviewed all cases of primary SMILE at Hoopes Vision in Draper, Utah between March 14, 2017 and April 8, 2022 to identify any cases that required follow-up enhancement. Primary SMILE was performed using Visumax 500 kHz femtosecond laser (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). All enhancements were performed with alcohol-assisted PRK, using a WaveLight EX500 excimer laser (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX).

Results

Four hundred and five eyes underwent primary SMILE, of which 15 later underwent PRK enhancement (enhancement rate of 3.7%). No significant difference in pre-SMILE data was identified between the enhancement and non-enhancement groups. The average age of those who underwent PRK enhancement was 33.8±6.3 years old and ranged from 25 to 45. Following primary SMILE, 13 eyes (87%) had an uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/40 or better, and none had a UDVA of 20/20 or better. After one year of post-enhancement follow-up, all eyes had a UDVA of 20/40 or better, and 13 eyes (87%) had a UDVA of 20/20 or better (Figure 1). All were within one diopter of target spherical equivalent (SEQ), 13 (87%) were within 0.50 D, and 10 (67%) were within 0.25 D. Of those with 12-month follow-up data, none had UDVA worse than corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and none had lost lines of CDVA. Efficacy and safety indices were 1.03 and 0.99, respectively.

Conclusion

Following SMILE, ophthalmologists may anticipate an enhancement rate of one to seven percent. In these cases, PRK is a safe and effective procedure for enhancement of SMILE.

SmartSurfACE transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy with mitomycin C enhancement after small incision lenticule extraction

Background

To evaluate predictability, stability, efficacy, and safety of transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (TPRK) using smart pulse technology (SPT) (SmartSurface procedure) of Schwind Amaris with mitomycin C for correction of post small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) myopic residual refractive errors.

Method

This study is a prospective, non-comparative case series conducted at a private eye centre in Ismailia, Egypt, on eyes with post-SMILE myopic residual refractive errors because of undercorrection or suction loss (suction loss occurred after the posterior lenticular cut and the creation of side-cuts; redocking was attempted, and the treatment was completed in the same session with the same parameters) with myopia or myopic astigmatism. The patients were followed up post-SMILE for six months before the SmartSurface procedure, and then they were followed up for one year after that. TPRK were performed using Amaris excimer laser at 500 kHz. The main outcomes included refractive predictability, stability, efficacy, safety and any reported complications.

Results

This study included 68 eyes of 40 patients out of 1920 total eyes (3.5%) with post-SMILE technique myopic residual refractive errors. The average duration between the SMILE surgery and TPRK was 6.7 ± 0.4 months (range 6 to 8 months). The mean refractive spherical equivalent (SE) was within ± 0.50 D of plano correction in 100% of the eyes at 12 months post-TPRK. Astigmatism of < 0.50 D was achieved in 100% of the eyes. The mean of the residual SE error showed statistically significant improvement from preoperative − 1.42 ± 0.52 D to 0.23 ± 0.10 D (P < 0.0001). Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) (measured by Snellen's chart and averaged in logMAR units) was improved significantly to 0.1 ± 0.07 (P < 0.0001). UDVA was 0.2 logMAR or better in 100% of the eyes, 0.1 logMAR or better in 91.2% of the eyes, and 0.0 logMAR in 20.6% of the eyes. Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) remained unchanged in 79.4% of eyes. 14.7% of eyes gained one line of CDVA (Snellen). 5.9% of eyes gained two lines of CDVA (Snellen).

Conclusion

Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy using smart pulse technology with mitomycin C enhancement after SMILE is a safe, predictable, stable, and effective technique.

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.

Experiment-Based Validation of Corneal Lenticule Banking in a Health Authority-Licensed Facility

With the expected rise in patients undergoing refractive lenticule extraction worldwide, the number of discarded corneal stromal lenticules will increase. Therefore, establishing a lenticule bank to collect, catalog, process, cryopreserve, and distribute the lenticules (for future therapeutic needs) could be advantageous. In this study, we validated the safety of lenticule banking that involved the collection of human lenticules from our eye clinic, transportation of the lenticules to a Singapore Ministry of Health-licensed lenticule bank, processing, and cryopreservation of the lenticules, which, after 3 months or, a longer term, 12 months, were retrieved and transported to our laboratory for implantation in rabbit corneas. The lenticule collection was approved by the SingHealth Centralised Institutional Review Board (CIRB). Both short-term and long-term cryopreserved lenticules, although not as transparent as fresh lenticules due to an altered collagen fibrillar packing, did not show any sign of rejection and cytotoxicity, and did not induce haze or neovascularization for 16 weeks even when antibiotic and steroidal administration were withdrawn after 8 weeks. The lenticular transparency progressively improved and was mostly clear after 4 weeks, the same period when we observed the stabilization of corneal hydration. We showed that the equalization of the collagen fibrillar packing of the lenticules with that of the host corneal stroma contributed to the lenticular haze clearance. Most importantly, no active wound healing and inflammatory reactions were seen after 16 weeks. Our study suggests that long-term lenticule banking is a feasible approach for the storage of stromal lenticules after refractive surgery.

Surgical options for retreatment after small-incision lenticule extraction: Advantages and disadvantages

Since the inception of small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), many surgeons have speculated the lack of an adequate and standard retreatment procedure will impede its popularity. However, more than 1 million patients worldwide have had this surgery, with visual outcomes nearly equivalent to current laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) results. With the procedure's growing popularity, some patients will inevitably have a postoperative residual refractive error from regression, overcorrection, undercorrection, and astigmatic induction and will require retreatment. To our knowledge, literature reviewing major retreatment options is limited. Options include surface ablation, thin-flap LASIK, secondary small-incision lenticule extraction, and a cap-to-flap procedure (CIRCLE) in which a femtosecond laser is use to create cuts that convert the small-incision lenticule extraction cap into a LASIK flap. This review discusses major advantages and disadvantages of these options and compares the visual outcomes based on the existing literature. An algorithmic approach created from this analysis is presented to guide retreatment decision-making.

Enhancement Options After Myopic Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE): A Review

PURPOSE

To provide an overview of the currently available retreatment methods after myopic small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).

DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

METHODS

The PubMed library was searched for articles containing the terms "small-incision lenticule extraction" and "enhancement" or "retreatment". The last search was performed on May 1, 2019.

RESULTS

In contrast to laser in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK), which can be retreated by a flap relift, repeat SMILE retreatment is currently not approved and only seldomly performed. As substitutes, surface ablation, cap-to-flap conversion using the CIRCLE program in the VisuMax platform, and thin-flap LASIK have been recently established. While all options offer safety and efficacy comparable to LASIK retreatments, each has its patient-specific advantages and disadvantages. While surface ablation preserves the flap-free approach of the primary procedure, the aspect of pain and a slow visual recovery might render it less attractive as compared with CIRCLE and thin-flap LASIK which offer quick recovery, however at the price of flap creation. Besides, each retreatment method generates specific tissue responses and has a different impact on corneal biomechanics, which is strongly dependent on the previous SMILE parameters, especially the cap thickness.

CONCLUSIONS

Refractive enhancement after SMILE is currently mostly performed by surface ablation, CIRCLE cap-to-flap conversion or thin-flap LASIK, which all offer safety and efficacy comparable to LASIK retreatments. In this review, a detailed overview over each method, its technical aspects, and specific advantages and disadvantages is given.

CIRCLE Software for the Management of Retained Lenticule Tissue Following Complicated SMILE Surgery

PURPOSE

To describe the therapeutic use of CIRCLE software (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) for the management of retained lenticule tissue after complicated small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).

METHODS

Two patients were referred for consultation and treatment due to intraoperative complications during SMILE. In case 1, a black patch during laser delivery caused the lenticule to be torn irregularly from the undersurface during extraction and a sliver of it was retained in the pocket. Case 2 presented with false plane dissection and a completely retained lenticule on anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Both cases were managed using the CIRCLE software by converting the cap into a flap, thus making access to the interface possible.

RESULTS

In case 1, after lifting the flap a small sliver of tissue was found in the interface, which was dissected, following which a 20-µm phototherapeutic keratectomy was done to smooth the interface. In case 2, after lifting the flap the edge of the retained lenticule was identified by using an endoilluminator and the lenticule was separated and subsequently removed. Both cases showed significant improvement in uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, and Objective Scatter Index score on day 1 after repair surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

CIRCLE software may be successfully used for managing retained lenticule tissue apart from performing enhancement after SMILE. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(1):60-65.].

Outcomes of Re-treatment by LASIK After SMILE

PURPOSE

To report the outcomes of LASIK re-treatments after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).

METHODS

Retrospective review of all eyes to have undergone a re-treatment by LASIK after primary SMILE between September 2013 and January 2016. Thin-flap LASIK was used in most cases as long as sufficient tissue was available for safe flap creation between the maximum epithelial thickness and minimum cap thickness. Otherwise, the SMILE interface was converted into a LASIK flap by the Circle technique or side cut only. The multivariate nomogram for LASIK re-treatments was used, including sphere, cylinder, age, and primary spherical equivalent (SEQ) as variables. Patients were observed for 1 year after surgery and standard outcomes analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 116 LASIK re-treatments were performed in a population of 2,643 consecutive SMILE procedures, indicating a re-treatment rate of 4.39%. Mean attempted SEQ was -0.05 ± 0.99 diopters (D) (range: -1.88 to +1.50 D). Mean cylinder was -0.70 ± 0.55 D (range: 0.00 to -2.25 D). Postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity was 20/20 or better in 81% of eyes, for a population with corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) of 20/20 or better in 95% before re-treatment. Mean postoperative SEQ relative to the target was +0.19 ± 0.49 D (range: -0.88 to +2.13 D), with 74% within ±0.50 D. Mean postoperative cylinder was -0.29 ± 0.24 D (range: 0.00 to -1.25 D). There was one line loss of CDVA in 15% of eyes, but no eyes lost two or more lines. There was a small increase in contrast sensitivity (P < .05). Overcorrection was identified in myopic re-treatments (n = 20) of -1.00 D or more; mean postoperative SEQ was +0.59 ± 0.64 D (range: -0.63 to +2.13 D).

CONCLUSIONS

Re-treatment after SMILE by LASIK achieved excellent visual and refractive outcomes, although these results indicate that myopic LASIK retreatment after primary myopic SMILE requires a different nomogram than for myopic LASIK re-treatment after primary myopic LASIK. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(9):578-588.].

CIRCLE Enhancement After Myopic SMILE

PURPOSE

To report the outcomes of enhancement after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) using the VisuMax CIRCLE option (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany), which converts the SMILE cap into a femtosecond LASIK flap for secondary excimer laser application.

METHODS

Of 2,065 SMILE procedures, 22 eyes (1.1%) re-treated with CIRCLE with a follow-up of 3 months were included in the analysis. SMILE was performed in the usual manner. For re-treatment, the CIRCLE procedure was performed with pattern D flap creation on the VisuMax system and subsequent excimer laser ablation with a Zeiss MEL 90 laser (Carl Zeiss Meditec) with plano target in all cases.

RESULTS

Spherical equivalent was -5.56 ± 2.22 diopters (D) before SMILE and -0.51 ± 1.08 D before CIRCLE. CIRCLE enhancement was performed after a mean of 10.0 ± 7.9 months, allowed for safe flap lifting in all eyes, and resulted in a final manifest refraction spherical equivalent of 0.18 ± 0.31 D at 3 months (P < .008). The number of eyes within 0.50 and 1.00 D from target refraction increased from 31.8% to 90.9% and from 77.3% to 100%, respectively. Mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) had already improved from 0.37 ± 0.16 to 0.08 ± 0.16 logMAR at 1 week (P < .0001), resulting in 0.03 ± 0.07 logMAR at 3 months (P < .0001). All eyes gained at least one line of UDVA. Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) remained unchanged at all time points (before vs after CIRCLE, P = .40). Two eyes (9.1 %) lost one line of CDVA; no eye lost two or more lines. The safety and efficacy indices were 1.03 and 0.97 at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The CIRCLE procedure represents an effective re-treatment option after SMILE. Compared to surface ablation re-treatment after SMILE, CIRCLE seems to offer advantages in respect to speed of visual recovery, safety, and predictability, but at the price of flap creation. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(5):304-309.].

A Modified Small-Incision Lenticule Intrastromal Keratoplasty (sLIKE) for the Correction of High Hyperopia: A Description of a New Surgical Technique and Comparison to Lenticule Intrastromal Keratoplasty (LIKE)

Patients with high hyperopia are generally confined to either spectacle wear or contact lenses as a primary means of refractive correction. For this patient population, the surgical corrective methods, such as hyperopic laser assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) are imperfect options due to induction of higher-order aberrations, optical regression, and loss of best corrected distance visual acuity. Recently, there has been growing interest in lenticule implantation underneath a flap via lenticule intrastromal keratoplasty (LIKE) for high hyperopia correction (+3 diopters to +10 diopters). We instead propose a modified surgical technique (small-incision lenticule intrastromal keratoplasty, sLIKE), in which the lenticule is implanted inside an intrastromal pocket thereby causing less injury to the subbasal nerve plexus injury, less postoperative dry eye symptoms, less reduction in biomechanical strength, and lower chances for epithelial ingrowth. We provide an overview of these novel surgical techniques to treat high hyperopia, and compare the associated advantages and disadvantages. In addition, we will discuss the enhancement options and methods of optimization for both surgical techniques.