Suction Stability Management in SMILE: Development of a Decision Tree for Managing Eye Movements and Suction Loss

Refractive Surgery in Myopic Children

In this paper, we summarize the current knowledge on refractive surgery performed in the myopic pediatric population. We describe the main concerns about refractive surgery in myopic children and the indications for refractive surgery in this age group. We present a range of surgical procedures that are being used for the management of unilateral/bilateral myopia in children: corneal refractive surgery (PRK, LASEK, LASIK, FS-LASIK and SMILE) and intraocular refractive surgery (phakic intraocular lens implantation, refractive lens exchange or clear lens extraction), with both their advantages and drawbacks. We also describe the various complications and measures to prevent them.

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.

Clinical outcomes of the immediate reapplication of small-incision lenticule extraction without adjusting the surgical parameters after suction loss

This study was to analyze the clinical outcomes of immediate reapplication of small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) without adjusting the surgical parameters after suction loss and to compare the outcomes with contralateral eyes that underwent uneventful SMILE. A total of 74 patients who underwent uneventful SMILE in one eye (Uneventful group) and immediate reapplication of SMILE without adjusting the surgical parameters after suction loss in the contralateral eye (Suction loss group) were included. Suction loss occurred during the posterior lenticule surface cut in 39 eyes (53%) and the cap cut in 35 eyes (47%). Surgical outcomes, including visual acuity, manifest refraction, keratometry, and corneal wavefront aberrations, were evaluated at 6 months postoperatively. The mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and spherical equivalent were − 0.02 ± 0.07, − 0.04 ± 0.04, and − 0.10 ± 0.46 diopters (D), respectively, in the Suction loss group and − 0.02 ± 0.07, − 0.04 ± 0.05, and − 0.19 ± 0.53 D, respectively (P = 0.965, 0.519, and 0.265, respectively), in the Uneventful group. Changes between the preoperative and 6-month postoperative total corneal aberrations, spherical aberrations, and horizontal and vertical coma did not significantly differ between the Suction loss and Uneventful groups. Immediate reapplication of SMILE without adjusting the surgical parameters after suction loss resulted in good surgical outcomes that were comparable with those of uneventful SMILE.

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.

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.

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.

Risk factors and incidence of suction loss during small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) in 8493 eyes

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

This retrospective comparative case control study included 8493 eyes of 4261 patients. Patients underwent SMILE surgery between January 2014 and September 2019 were included. Videos of suction loss were reviewed, and the direct causes of suction loss were noted. An independent samples t-test was used for comparisons between the suction loss group and the control group. A binary logistic regression model was used to determine the possible significant risk factors that might increase the likelihood of suction loss during SMILE surgery.

RESULTS

Suction loss occurred in 31 (0.37%) eyes of 30 patients; 23 (74.2%) cases occurred in the right eye (the first operative eye) and 8 (25.8%) cases occurred in the left eye. Among the 30 patients, 23 (76.7%) were male and 7 (23.3%) were female. The incidence in the six consecutive years were 0, 2.13, 0.34, 0.24, 0.22, and 0.25%. Head and eye movements during surgery caused suction loss in 16 (51.6%) and 15 (48.4%) eyes, respectively. Comparison between the suction loss group and the control group showed that the first operative eye and male sex are at a significantly high risk for suction loss (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk factors of suction loss were first operative eye and male sex. Head and eye movements due to patient anxiety are the most common direct causes of suction loss. Surgeon's experience may help to reduce the incidence of suction loss. Preoperative education and better communication during surgery needs to be emphasized.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively registered. ChiCTR-ORC-17011040 . Registered 1 April 2017. Name of registry: The observation of clinical results after corneal refractive surgery. Data of enrolment of the first participant to the trial: 1 January 2014.

Refractive surgery beyond 2020

Refractive surgery refers to any procedure that corrects or minimizes refractive errors. Today, refractive surgery has evolved beyond the traditional laser refractive surgery, embodied by the popular laser in situ keratomileusis or 'LASIK'. New keratorefractive techniques such as small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) avoids corneal flap creation and uses a single laser device, while advances in surface ablation techniques have seen a resurgence in its popularity. Presbyopic treatment options have also expanded to include new ablation profiles, intracorneal implants, and phakic intraocular implants. With the improved safety and efficacy of refractive lens exchange, a wider variety of intraocular lens implants with advanced optics provide more options for refractive correction in carefully selected patients. In this review, we also discuss possible developments in refractive surgery beyond 2020, such as preoperative evaluation of refractive patients using machine learning and artificial intelligence, potential use of stromal lenticules harvested from SMILE for presbyopic treatments, and various advances in intraocular lens implants that may provide a closer to 'physiological correction' of refractive errors.

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.