Outcomes of Small Incision Lenticule Extraction with Dual-Incisions in Myopic Patients

Evaluation of Ocular Residual Astigmatism in Eyes with Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism and Its Interaction with Other Forms of Astigmatism

Purpose

To evaluate the prevalence, magnitude, and direction of ocular residual astigmatism (ORA) in eyes with myopia and myopic astigmatism, and its interaction with refractive, anterior corneal, posterior corneal, and true net power astigmatism.

Patients and Methods

Refractive surgery candidates with myopia and myopic astigmatism were studied. Refractive astigmatism (RA) was measured using the Nidek^® AR-310A autorefractometer. Anterior corneal astigmatism (ACA), posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA), and true net power astigmatism (TNP) were measured using the Wavelight^® Oculyzer II. Astigmatism was converted from polar to vector notation. ORA was calculated by vector subtraction of ACA from RA vertexed to corneal plane. Compensation factor (CF) was calculated as the ratio of ORA that compensates ACA for both J₀ and J₄₅.

Results

154 eyes of 88 patients (mean age 31.7±7.1 years) were included. With-the-rule (WTR) astigmatism was the most common for both RA (55.6%) and ACA (74%), while against-the-rule (ATR) was the most common for PCA (87.7%) and ORA (74.0%). The axes of RA and ACA were within 10° of each other in 46.8% of the eyes, and within 30° of each other in 76.0%. The mean difference in value between the axis of RA and ACA was 25.6°. 71.4% of eyes in the study had an ORA ≥ 0.5D, 44.1% had ORA ≥ 0.75D and 26% had ORA ≥ 1D. There was a statistically significant difference between ACA and each of RA and TNP. Using TNP to calculate ORA instead of ACA reduced its magnitude. RA is positively correlated to ACA and more strongly to TNP. The most common pattern of compensation between ORA and ACA was under-compensation for J₀ (49%) and same-axis-augmentation for J45 (35%).

Conclusion

ORA, PCA, and the interaction between ORA and ACA can affect results during refractive planning.

Comparison of Refractive Outcomes in Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction Performed with One or Two Incisions

Purpose

To retrospectively compare the refractive outcomes between two groups of small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), one with a single incision and the second one with dual-incisions.

Setting

Ebsar Eye Center, Benha, Qalyopia, Egypt.

Design

A retrospective cohort study.

Methods

This study was made up of two groups (162 eyes each): all eyes in group 1 had one SMILE cut at 120°, and all eyes in group 2 had double SMILE incisions, the first incision at 120° and the second one at 270°. Refractive outcomes between the two groups were compared at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.

Results

The mean preoperative refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE) was −5.75 ± 2.59 D and −6.38 ± 2.18 D in group 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.73), and a cylinder of 1.25 ± 0.83 D and 0.75 ± 0.81 D, respectively (P = 0.85). At 12 months postoperatively, in group 1, 162 eyes (100%) achieved a UCVA of 20/25, 154 eyes (95.06%) achieved a UCVA of 20/20, and 110 eyes (67.90%) achieved 20/16. In group 2, 162 eyes (100%) achieved a UCVA of 20/25, 156 eyes (96.29%) achieved a UCVA of 20/20, and 113 eyes (69.75%) achieved 20/16. The mean MRSE at 12 months postoperatively was −0.25 ± 0.33 D in group 1 and −0.5 ± 0.33 D in group 2 (P = 0.62).

Conclusion

Dual-incision SMILE is safe and effective as single-incision SMILE, with a predictable and stable effect in correcting myopia and myopic astigmatism.