Feasibility, Safety, and Outcomes With Standard Versus Differential Spot Distance Protocols in Eyes Undergoing SMILE for Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism

PURPOSE

To study the feasibility, safety, comparison of intraoperative ease of dissection, and immediate visual outcomes with standard versus differential small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) spot settings in eyes undergoing bilateral SMILE for myopia or myopic astigmatism.

METHODS

One hundred eyes of 50 patients (mean age: 25.4 years) were randomized to receive standard settings (4.5-µm spot and track spacing in cap and lenticule interface) in one eye and differential settings (4.5-µm spot and track spacing in cap interface and 4.2 µm in lenticule interface) in the contralateral eye. Opaque bubble layer (OBL) was graded using a new grading system and a surgeon questionnaire was obtained to grade the ease of dissection (from 0 to 5, with 5 being the easiest) at the end of each surgery. Visual results and optical quality were analyzed at 1 day, 2 weeks, and 3 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

The mean OBL score was significantly lower in the differential group (26.3%) compared to the standard group (35.3%) (P < .01). Consequently, the mean dissection score was significantly higher in the differential group (4.01) compared to the standard group (3.57) (P < .01). The uncorrected distance visual acuity, Objective Scatter Index, modulation transfer function cut-off, and higher order aberrations were comparable with no statistically significant difference between both groups at 1 day, 2 weeks, and 3 months postoperatively (P > .05 for all parameters). No eye in either group had any intraoperative or postoperative complication affecting visual recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Differential spot settings resulted in less intraoperative OBL and easy separability. However, the visual results and optical quality were comparable between groups. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(5):294-302.].

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.].

Visual outcomes and management after corneal refractive surgery: A review

Corneal refractive surgery procedures are widely performed to permanently correct refractive errors. Overall, refractive surgeries are safe, predictable and present high rates of satisfaction. Nevertheless, the induced epithelial, stromal and nerve damage alters corneal integrity and function, triggering a regenerative response. Complications that arise from corneal wound healing process might directly impact on visual outcomes of keratorefractive procedures. Most of these complications can be prevented or effectively treated with minimal consequences and minor impact on optical quality. Nevertheless, it is crucial to accurately and timely identify these corneal regeneration-related complications for successful counseling and management. Optometrists, as primary eye care providers, play an essential role in detecting anatomic and functional alterations in vision. It is therefore of great interest for optometrists to be familiar with the principal postoperative complications derived from alterations in regenerative process after corneal laser refractive surgeries. This review aims to provide a basis for optometrists to better understand, identify and manage the main wound healing-related complications after refractive surgery.