Refraction outcomes after suction loss during small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE)

Comparison of early visual outcomes after SMILE using VISUMAX 800 and VISUMAX 500 for myopia: a retrospective matched case-control study

VISUMAX 800 was introduced to improve the patient experience and clinical outcomes of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). This was a retrospective, matched, and case-control study (1:2) controlled for preoperative central corneal thickness and refractive error that compared early refractive and visual outcomes after SMILE using VISUMAX 800 and VISUMAX 500 to treat myopia. We included 50 eyes that underwent the VISUMAX 800 SMILE and 100 eyes that underwent the VISUMAX 500 SMILE. SMILE using VISUMAX 800 was performed using the CentraLign aid for vertex centration. Cyclotorsion was controlled by an OcuLign assistant in the VISUMAX 800 group after corneal marking. Corneal higher-order aberrations (HOAs) were evaluated using a Pentacam 1 month after surgery. No differences were observed in the pre- and post-operative refractive and visual outcomes at 1 day, 1 month, and 6 months after surgery. VISUMAX 800 induced less total HOAs than VISUMAX 500 (P = 0.036). No statistically significant differences were observed in the amounts of induced spherical aberrations or vertical and horizontal comas. No differences were observed in the 1 month and 6 months refractive and visual outcomes between two SMILE procedures, except for VISUMAX 800, which resulted in lower postoperative total HOAs than VISUMAX 500.

Grading for suction loss in small incision lenticule extraction

INTRODUCTION

To observe the characteristics of suction loss in small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and analyze the factors affecting the stability of the suction ring, classify and grade suction loss, and determine the principles for its prevention and control.

METHODS

This study enrolled patients who underwent SMILE between June 2014 and June 2017. The relationship between the stability of the suction ring and suction loss was ascertained using surgical records and video recordings. The suction loss was classified and graded according to its characteristics and relationship with eye or head movement. The effect of target intervention on suction loss was observed.

RESULTS

Suction loss can be divided into sudden and progressive types. According to the severity, the latter was divided into three grades (grade 1A or 1B, 2 and 3). Of the 1200 eyes (608 patients), two (0.17%) had sudden suction loss, and 132 (11%) had progressive suction loss. The superior part, inferior part, and other parts accounted for 63.4%, 19.3%, and 17.3% of progressive suction loss, respectively. The proportion of grades 1A, 1B, 2, and 3 suction loss was 53%, 34%, 12%, and 1%, respectively. The location of the threatened suction loss was opposite to the direction of the patient's head movement. After the intraoperative intervention, grades 1 and 2 did not develop into "actual" suction loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Progressive suction loss was the most frequently observed suction loss during SMILE procedure. Grading suction loss can elucidate its underlying mechanism, which can guide targeted intervention measures to effectively control and reduce suction loss-induced damage, and further improve the safety and efficacy of SMILE.

Options and results in managing suction loss during small-incision lenticule extraction

Suction loss is an intraoperative complication in small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) that presents a management challenge for the refractive surgeon. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the visual, refractive, and wavefront outcomes after suction loss across the different stages of SMILE with various respective surgical treatments. Surgical management options include immediate re-SMILE by redocking or delayed re-SMILE, with or without adjustment of the laser parameters, conversion to femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis, transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy, refractive lenticule extraction, or pseudo-SMILE. The restart treatment module on VisuMax provides appropriate retreatment recommendation. Most retreatment options for suction loss, immediate or delayed, resulted in effective, safe, and predictable outcomes, and patients were satisfied with their outcomes. Based on available level II evidence, immediate re-SMILE with or without adjustment to the laser settings achieve favorable visual and refractive outcomes in handling this intraoperative complication across all stages of SMILE.

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.

Suction stability management in small incision lenticule extraction: incidence and outcomes of suction loss in 4000 consecutive procedures

PURPOSE

To report the incidence and outcomes of suction loss during small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).

METHODS

The incidence of suction loss was measured over 4000 consecutive SMILE procedures and categorized by cause, the interface in which suction was lost and management (restart/continue SMILE, re-SMILE thinner cap, convert to laser in-situ keratomileusis [LASIK]). One-year outcomes were compared to the fellow eye where no suction loss occurred.

RESULTS

There were 20 cases of suction loss (0.50%): during the lenticule interface in seven eyes, lenticule side cut in one eye, cap interface in nine eyes and small incision for three eyes. Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) was continued in seven eyes, thinner cap SMILE in four eyes, LASIK in eight eyes, and the small incision was manually completed in one eye. Suction loss was caused by a Bell's reflex in 10 eyes, fixation light tracking in six eyes, patient anxiety in two eyes, a nociceptive reflex in one eye and false suction in one eye. There was no difference in results for suction loss and fellow eyes, respectively: uncorrected distance visual acuity was 20/20 or better in 100% in both groups, spherical equivalent was within ±0.50 D in 85% and 79%, one line loss of corrected distance visual acuity in 5% and 0%, and no eyes lost two lines.

CONCLUSION

Suction loss can be managed depending on the interface during which suction is lost. Treatment was completed on the same day in all instances. Visual and refractive outcomes were unaffected compared to the fellow eye in this series.