Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) monovision for presbyopia correction

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Management with corneal techniques

Corneal techniques for enhancing near and intermediate vision to correct presbyopia include surgical and contact lens treatment modalities. Broad approaches used independently or in combination include correcting one eye for distant and the other for near or intermediate vision, (termed monovision or mini-monovision depending on the degree of anisometropia) and/or extending the eye's depth of focus [1]. This report provides an overview of the evidence for the treatment profile, safety, and efficacy of the range of corneal techniques currently available for managing presbyopia. The visual needs and expectations of the patient, their ocular characteristics, and prior history of surgery are critical considerations for patient selection and preoperative evaluation. Contraindications to refractive surgery include unstable refraction, corneal abnormalities, inadequate corneal thickness for the proposed ablation depth, ocular and systemic co-morbidities, uncontrolled mental health issues and unrealistic patient expectations. Laser refractive options for monovision include surface/stromal ablation techniques and keratorefractive lenticule extraction. Alteration of spherical aberration and multifocal ablation profiles are the primary means for increasing ocular depth of focus, using surface and non-surface laser refractive techniques. Corneal inlays use either small aperture optics to increase depth of field or modify the anterior corneal curvature to induce corneal multifocality. Presbyopia correction by conductive keratoplasty involves application of radiofrequency energy to the mid-peripheral corneal stroma which leads to mid-peripheral corneal shrinkage, inducing central corneal steepening. Hyperopic orthokeratology lens fitting can induce spherical aberration and correct some level of presbyopia. Postoperative management, and consideration of potential complications, varies according to technique applied and the time to restore corneal stability, but a minimum of 3 months of follow-up is recommended after corneal refractive procedures. Ongoing follow-up is important in orthokeratology and longer-term follow-up may be required in the event of late complications following corneal inlay surgery.

Optimizing Refractive Outcomes of SMILE: Artificial Intelligence versus Conventional State-of-the-Art Nomograms

PURPOSE

AI (artificial intelligence)-based methodologies have become established tools for researchers and physicians in the entire field of ophthalmology. However, the potential of AI to optimize the refractive outcome of keratorefractive surgery by means of machine learning (ML)-based nomograms has not been exhausted yet. In this study, we wanted to comprehensively compare state-of-the-art conventional nomograms for Small-Incision-Lenticule-Extraction (SMILE) with a novel ML-based nomogram regarding both their spherical and astigmatic predictability.

METHODS

A total of 1,342 eyes were analyzed for creation of three different nomograms based on a linear model (LM), a generalized additive mixed model (GAMM) and an artificial-neuronal-network (ANN), respectively. A total of 16 patient- and treatment-related features were included. Each model was trained by 895 eyes and validated by the remaining 447 eyes. Predictability was assessed by the difference between attempted and achieved change in spherical equivalent (SE) and the difference between target induced astigmatism (TIA) and surgically induced astigmatism (SIA). The root mean squared error (RMSE) of each model was computed as a measure of overall model performance.

RESULTS

The RMSE of LM, GAMM and ANN were 0.355, 0.348 and 0.367 for the prediction of SE and 0.279, 0.278 and 0.290 for the astigmatic correction, respectively. By applying the created models, the theoretical yield of eyes within ±0.50 D of SE from target refraction improved from 82 to 83% (LM), 84% (GAMM) and 83% (ANN), respectively. Astigmatic outcomes showed an improvement of eyes within ±0.50 D from TIA from 90 to 93% (LM), 93% (GAMM) and 92% (ANN), respectively. Subjective manifest refraction was the single most influential covariate in all models.

CONCLUSION

Machine learning endorsed the validity of state-of-the-art linear and non-linear SMILE nomograms. However, improving the accuracy of subjective manifest refraction seems warranted for optimizing ±0.50 D SE predictability beyond an apparent methodological 90% limit.

Binocular imbalance in patients after implantable collamer lens V4c implantation or femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis for myopia with presbyopia

Aim

To investigate the long-term safety, efficacy, and binocular balance of monovision surgery using Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) V4c implantation and Femtosecond Laser-Assisted in situ Keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for the treatment of myopic patients with presbyopia.

Methods

This case series study involved 90 eyes of 45 patients (male/female = 19/26; average age:46.27 ± 5.54 years; average follow-up time:48.73 ± 14.65 months) who underwent the aforementioned surgery to treat myopic presbyopes. Data on manifest refraction, corrected distance visual acuity, dominant eye, presbyopic addition, intraocular pressure, and anterior segment biometric parameters were collected. The visual outcomes and binocular balance at 0.4 m, 0.8 m, and 5 m were documented.

Results

The safety index for the ICL V4c and FS-LASIK groups were 1.24 ± 0.27 and 1.04 ± 0.20 (p = 0.125), respectively. Binocular visual acuity (logmar) for 0.4 m, 0.8 m, and 5 m were -0.03 ± 0.05, -0.03 ± 0.02, and 0.10 ± 0.03 for the ICL V4c group, and -0.02 ± 0.09, -0.01 ± 0.02, and 0.06 ± 0.04 for the FS-LASIK group, respectively. The proportions of all patients with imbalanced vision at 0.4 m, 0.8 m, and 5 m distances were 68.89, 71.11, and 82.22%, respectively (all p > 0.05 between the two groups). There were significant differences in refraction between the balanced and imbalanced vision for patients at 0.4 m distance (for non-dominant eye spherical equivalent [SE]: -1.14 ± 0.17D and -1.47 ± 0.13D, p < 0.001), 0.8 m distance (for preoperative ADD:0.90 ± 0.17D and 1.05 ± 0.11D, p = 0.041), and 5 m distance (for non-dominant SE: -1.13 ± 0.33D and -1.42 ± 0.11D, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

ICL V4c implantation and FS-LASIK monovision treatment demonstrated good long-term safety and binocular visual acuity at various distances. After the procedure, the imbalanced patients' vision is primarily related to the age-related presbyopia and anisometropia progression caused by the monovision design.

Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas with and without total keratometry and ray tracing in patients with previous myopic SMILE

PURPOSE

To evaluate the prediction error (PE) variance and absolute median PE of different intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas including last-generation formulas such as Barrett True-K with K, Okulix and total keratometry (TK)-based calculations with Haigis, and Barrett True-K in a simulation model in post-small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) eyes.

SETTINGS

Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

METHODS

Preoperative measurements included IOL power calculation before and after SMILE surgery. The target refraction was set to be the lowest myopic refractive error in pre-SMILE eyes. The IOL power targeting at the lowest myopic refractive error in pre-SMILE eyes was selected for the post-SMILE IOL calculation of the same eye. The difference between the predicted refraction of pre- and post-SMILE eyes with the same IOL power was defined as IOL difference. The refractive change induced by SMILE was defined as the difference between preoperative and postoperative manifest refraction.

RESULTS

98 eyes from 49 patients underwent bilateral myopic SMILE. The PE variance of Okulix was not significantly different compared with Barrett True-K with TK ( P = .471). The SDs of the mean PEs were ±0.413 D (Haigis-TK), ±0.453 D (Okulix), ±0.471 D (Barrett True-K with TK), ±0.556 D (Haigis-L), and ±0.576 D (Barrett True-K with K). The mean absolute PE was 0.340 D, 0.353 D, 0.404 D, 0.511 D, and 0.715 D for Haigis-TK, Okulix, Barrett True-K with TK, Barrett True-K with K, and Haigis-L, respectively. The highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D was achieved by Okulix, followed by Haigis-TK, Barrett True-K with TK, Barrett True-K with K, and Haigis-L.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that Haigis in combination with TK, Okulix, and Barrett True-K with and without TK offer good options for accurate IOL power calculation after SMILE. Haigis-L showed a tendency for myopic shift in eyes after previous SMILE.

Effectiveness of SMILE Combined with Micro-Monovision in Presbyopic Patients: A Pilot Study

Binocular summation along all defocus range after a micro-monovision procedure has scarcely been studied. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the efficacy of SMILE combined with different levels of micro-monovision in presbyopic patients and to assess the binocular summation effect on contrast sensitivity defocus curves (CSDC) at the 6-month follow-up. Efficacy was assessed on the basis of visual acuity (VA) and stereopsis at far, intermediate, and near distances. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and binocular CSDC were also evaluated. Six patients completed the study with a programmed median anisometropia of 0.81 Diopter. The median binocular uncorrected VA was better than 0 logMAR at the three evaluated distances, and stereopsis was not impaired in any patient, achieving a median of ≤119 arcsec at any distance. CSDC increased binocularly after surgery, significantly in the range of -2 to -3 D (p < 0.05). No clinically relevant changes were observed in PROs compared with the preoperative period, and all patients achieved spectacle independence at intermediate/near distance and were likely or very likely to undergo the same surgery. In conclusion, micro-monovision with SMILE could be an effective procedure, with results that might be comparable to other laser correction techniques specifically designed for presbyopia correction.

Prospective, Randomized, Fellow Eye-Controlled Study of Postoperative Pain and Inflammation Control with an Intracanalicular Dexamethasone 0.4 mg Ophthalmic Insert Following Small Incision Lenticule Extraction

PURPOSE

To compare postoperative anterior chamber inflammation, pain, and patient preference following small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) in eyes treated with a dexamethasone 0.4 mg intracanalicular insert (DEX) or topical prednisolone acetate (PRED).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, fellow eye-controlled trial, 20 patients underwent same-day, bilateral SMILE. One randomly-selected eye of each patient received DEX placed immediately postoperatively, and the fellow eye received topical PRED tapered over 2 weeks. Postoperative evaluations were performed on day 1, week 1, month 1, and month 3. Primary outcomes included postoperative pain, incidence of anterior chamber cell and flare, and patient preference of steroid therapy.

RESULTS

No eyes in either group had any clinically evident cell or flare at any postoperative time point. Mean pain scores (0-10 by subjective report) and incidence of any pain were statistically similar at all postoperative visits. Uncorrected distance visual acuity improved in all eyes, 91% of which achieved 20/25 or better. No eyes lost any lines of corrected distance visual acuity. Three eyes developed a steroid-related rise in intraocular pressure, all of which resolved with 2 of the 3 eyes requiring topical therapy. At 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months, 70%, 65%, and 53% of patients preferred DEX over PRED therapy, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The DEX insert was preferred by more patients and controlled postoperative inflammation and pain comparably to topical PRED in eyes undergoing SMILE. There were no statistically significant differences in visual outcomes between the two groups.

Evaluating early-stage disk halo changes after small incision lenticule extraction

PURPOSE

To investigate early changes in the disk halo under different light conditions after myopic small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).

METHODS

This prospective study included 70 eyes of 70 myopic patients aged 18-33 years, with a spherical equivalent (SE) of -5.87 ± 1.86 D, who underwent SMILE. The subjective refraction, higher-order aberrations (HOAs), pupillometry, and halo were measured preoperatively and postoperatively to analyse disk halo variations and correlated factors.

RESULTS

At 5 cd/m2 and 1 cd/m2 luminance, the halo radius in the high myopia (HM) group reached a postoperative peak after 1 week (p = 0.000 and 0.019, respectively), and recovered to baseline after 3 months. In the low-to-moderate (LM) myopia group, the halo radius did not differ 1 week postoperatively compared to the preoperative level (p = 0.015), but significantly improved after 3 months (p = 0.000). The halo radius correlated with SE, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), ocular HOAs, coma, and the pupillary light reflex in the LM group at all time points, but there were no correlations in the HM group.

CONCLUSIONS

Halo symptoms occurred early after SMILE, but recovered within 3 months. The recovery process was slower in the HM group than in the LM group, and the halo radius correlated with SE, UDVA, ocular HOAs, coma, and the pupillary light reflex.

Long-term follow-up for monovision surgery by Implantable Collamer Lens V4c implantation for myopia correction in early presbyopia

Purpose

To investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of monovision surgery using implantable collamer lens V4c (ICL V4c) implantation in myopic patients with early presbyopia.

Setting

Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

Design

Prospective case series study.

Methods

This study included 64 eyes of 32 patients with early presbyopia, who underwent bilateral ICL V4c implantation for myopia correction. Parameters, including mean spherical equivalent (SE), uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, intraocular pressure, endothelial cell density, presbyopic add power, visual acuity (logMAR) of dominant eyes (D-eye), nondominant (nD-eye) eyes, and both eyes (Bi) at 0.4 m, 0.8 m, and 5 m were recorded at the last follow-up.

Results

All surgeries were uneventful. At the last follow-up, the safety indices were 1.23 ± 0.18 (D-eyes) and 1.21 ± 0.18 (nD-eyes) (p > 0.05); the efficacy indices were 0.95 ± 0.27 (D-eyes) and 0.92 ± 0.28 (nD-eyes) (p < 0.05), the SE was -0.62 ± 0.47 D (D-eyes); and − 1.21 ± 0.78D (nD-eyes) (p < 0.05), presbyopic add power was 1.31 ± 0.58 D. The visual acuity (logMAR) of D-eyes, nD-eyes, and binocular (Bi) at 5.0 m were: 0.06 ± 0.15 (D-eye), 0.21 ± 0.18 (nD-eye), (p < 0.01), and 0.04 ± 0.13 (Bi); 0.8 m: 0.03 ± 0.18 (D-eye), 0.08 ± 0.16 (nD-eye), (p > 0.05), and − 0.02 ± 0.11 (Bi); 0.4 m: 0.08 ± 0.09 (D-eye), − 0.02 ± 0.08 (nD-eye), (p < 0.001), and − 0.03 ± 0.09 (Bi). Subjects were very satisfied or felt excellent with their visual acuity at near (81.25%) and far distances (87.50%), respectively (versus preoperative, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Monovision surgery using ICL V4c implantation is safe and practicable for correction of myopes with presbyopia, with long-term efficacy at near and far distances and patient satisfaction.

Visual and Refractive Outcomes Following Laser Blended Vision Using Non-linear Aspheric Micro-monovision

PURPOSE

To report 1-year visual and refractive outcomes following PRESBYOND Laser Blended Vision using non-linear aspheric micro-monovision with the MEL 90 platform (Carl Zeiss Meditec GmbH).

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively for all patients who underwent treatment for simultaneous correction of refractive error and presbyopia from June 2015 to June 2018. Only those patients who completed at least 6 months of follow-up were included in the study.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients with a mean age of 51.05 ± 5.15 years (range: 40 to 65 years), of whom 38 patients had myopic and 63 patients had hyperopic refractive error with or without astigmatism, were included in the study. Mean preoperative spherical equivalent was -3.36 ± 1.86 diopters (D) in the myopia group and +1.75 ± 0.99 D in the hyperopia group. At 1 year, the mean spherical equivalent refraction was +0.13 ± 0.32 D in the distance eye and -1.42 ± 0.33 D (range: -0.88 to -2.50 D) in the near eye in the myopia group and -0.13 ± 0.24 D in the distance eye and -1.28 ± 0.31 D (range: -0.63 to -2.00 D) in the near eye in the hyperopia group. Two eyes in the hyperopia group underwent early enhancement for the near eye at 3 months. Ninety-seven percent of the patients in the myopia group and 96% in the hyperopia group were satisfied with their distance vision. Near vision satisfaction score was 95% for the myopia group and 89% for the hyperopia group.

CONCLUSIONS

At 1 year, the aspheric micro-monovision protocol resulted in satisfactory and fairly stable visual outcomes in both myopic and hyperopic individuals. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(5):300-307.].

SMILE Versus Implantable Collamer Lens Implantation for High Myopia: A Matched Comparative Study

PURPOSE

To compare the safety, efficacy, and patient-reported quality of vision of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and implantable Collamer lens (ICL) implantation for the treatment of high myopia.

METHODS

A database of 1,634 SMILE (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) and 225 ICL implantation (STAAR Surgical, Monrovia, CA) procedures was screened for patients with a binocular preoperative manifest refraction spherical equivalent between -6.00 and -10.00 diopters (D) and plano target refraction. One-to-one matching was performed by preoperative manifest refraction spherical equivalent, age, and pupil size. All identified patients were then prospectively examined at their next regular postoperative follow-up visit and presented with the standardized and clinically validated Quality of Vision questionnaire to gauge patient-reported postoperative visual quality.

RESULTS

A total of 80 eyes (40 patients) were eligible for 1:1 matching. Mean postoperative follow-up was 27.8 ± 14.3 months in the SMILE group and 26.6 ± 17.7 months in the ICL group (P = .44). Regarding the percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D of plano target, refractive predictability was better in eyes treated with ICL implantation (90%) than SMILE (72.5%) (P = .045). Mean UDVA was comparable (ICL: -0.09 ± 0.10 logMAR; SMILE: -0.06 ± 0.09 logMAR; P < .09), but the efficacy (1.28 vs 1.05; P < .001) and safety (1.31 ± 0.22 vs 1.10 ± 0.25; P < .001) indices were higher after ICL implantation. ICL implantation induced significantly fewer higher order aberrations (total higher order aberrations: SMILE 0.724 ± 0.174 µm vs ICL 0.436 ± 0.114 µm; P < .01). Regarding subjective quality of vision, patients who had ICL implantation were significantly less bothered by visual disturbances, which were mainly halos after ICL and starbursts and fluctuations of vision after SMILE (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this refraction-matched comparative study, ICL implantation for high myopia yielded better refractive accuracy, better uncorrected distance visual acuity, fewer higher order aberrations, and better subjective quality of vision than SMILE. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(3):150-159.].

The effect of ocular dominance on macular function: A pattern electroretinogram study

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of ocular dominance on pattern electroretinogram (PERG) recordings in the participants who have no ophthalmic diseases.

METHODS

One hundred and twelve eyes of 56 participants (mean age 32.96 ± 10.82 years) were included in this prospective, cross-sectional study. After detailed ophthalmological examination and determination of the ocular dominance with hole-in-a-card test, the PERG was performed to determine implicit time and amplitudes of P50 and N95.

RESULTS

There were no significant interocular differences in visual acuity, refractive error, or intraocular pressure (p > 0.05 for all). Thirty-six (64.3%) of the participants had ocular dominance in the right eye. The dominant eyes had significantly higher P50 amplitude than in the fellow nondominant eyes (6.90 µV in dominant vs 5.87 µV in nondominant; p = 0.015; 95% confidence interval). There was no significant difference in N95 amplitude, N95/P50 ratio, and implicit times of P50 and N95 between the dominant and nondominant eyes of the participants (p = 0.090, p = 0.124 p = 0.817, p = 0.668; respectively).

CONCLUSION

The analysis revealed a significantly increased P50 amplitude of the PERG, which is known to be highly associated with macular function, in dominant eyes of the patients when compared to fellow nondominant eyes.

One Year Outcome and Satisfaction of Presbyopia Correction Using the PresbyMAX® Monocular Ablation Profile

Purpose: To explore the safety, efficacy, and satisfaction of the PresbyMAX monocular mode for the correction of presbyopia. Methods: Prospective study. Twenty-two patients (mean age 50.6 ± 6.2 years, 11 myopia patients and 11 hyperopia patients) were enrolled. The dominant eye was fully corrected for distance vision; the non-dominant eye was corrected using central PresbyMAX monocular mode. Binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (BUDVA), near visual acuity (BUNVA), intermediate visual acuity (BUIVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and mean spherical equivalent (SE) were tested at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Questionnaire was performed preoperatively, 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year after surgery. Results: At the final visit, the mean safety index was 1.03 ± 0.14. There were 85.7% eyes with the same or better CDVA than the preoperative value, and 17.1% and 2.9% eyes gained 1 line and 2 lines of CDVA, respectively. All treated eyes achieved 20/25 or better BUDVA, and 95.5% achieved 20/32 or better BUNVA, which improved significantly compared with preoperative values (P < 0.001). BUDVA maintained stability from 1 month postoperatively, BUNVA and BUIVA kept stable since 1 week after surgery. Overall satisfaction was 95.5% (21/22) at 3 months visit, and 100% at the last visit. No differences in terms of visual acuity and satisfaction were found between the myopia and hyperopia groups. Conclusion: The PresbyMAX monocular ablation profile was safe and effective in treating presbyopia, with great satisfaction achieved at postoperative 1 year.

Influence of age on small incision lenticule extraction outcomes

PURPOSE

To evaluate the influence of patient's age at the time of surgery on small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) refractive outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, consecutive, comparative study. We compared the refractive outcomes after myopic SMILE from two groups of patients divided by age (patients ≤35 and ≥40 years old). All eyes were evaluated preoperatively and at 1 and 6 months postoperatively. Main outcome measures were differences on efficacy, safety, predictability and astigmatic changes by vector analysis with ASSORT software between both study groups.

RESULTS

102 matched eyes of 53 patients were included. Preoperatively, we evidenced no differences in the mean SE or astigmatism between groups. However, 6 months postoperatively we observed a significantly worse mean astigmatism (p=0.019), while not regarding SE, in the older population, with a trend towards undercorrection of the refractive cylinder in the ≥40 group. We also observed a statistically significant difference in the efficacy (0.86-1 month and 0.97-6 months in ≥40group vs 0.97-1 month and 1.07-6 months in the ≤35 group; p=0.003) and safety indexes (0.93-1 month and 1.04-6 months in ≥40 group vs 1.0-1 month and 1.11-6 months in the ≤35 group; p=0.008) at 6 months among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-SMILE refractive outcomes in those patients over 40 years of age, although acceptable, are not as good as those obtained in younger patients, showing a significantly lower efficacy and safety indexes, and poorer astigmatic outcomes, with a tendency towards undercorrection. We hypothetise that the increased corneal stroma stiffness in the aged group modifies the post-SMILE corneal stroma remodelling capacity, thus affecting the SMILE refractive and visual response.

Corneal wavefront aberrations and subjective quality of vision after small incision lenticule extraction

PURPOSE

To analyse in depth the associations between objectively measured corneal higher-order aberrations (HOAs) and subjectively perceived visual quality after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) as quantified with the standardized and clinically validated quality of vision (QOV) questionnaire.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included patients after bilateral simultaneous SMILE for the treatment of myopia and/or myopic astigmatism with plano target refraction. Scheimpflug imaging (Pentacam HR; Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) was used to objectively quantify corneal HOAs. The standardized and validated QOV questionnaire was employed to gauge patients' subjectively perceived visual quality regarding frequency, severity and bothering effect of visual disturbances.

RESULTS

A total of 394 eyes of 197 patients with a mean age of 32.4 ± 7.7 years and a mean postoperative follow-up of 24.3 ± 14.1 months were included. SMILE induced a statistically significant (p < 0.001) increase in spherical aberration (0.074 ± 0.131 µm), coma (0.142 ± 0.179 µm), trefoil (0.018 ± 0.067 µm) as well as in total HOAs (0.191 ± 0.176 µm). Surgically induced and postoperative levels of HOA showed no correlation with the three QOV scores representative of overall visual symptom frequency, severity and bothering effect (all R² values ≤ 0.016). In addition, the associations between specific visual symptoms (e.g. starburst) and singular HOA terms (e.g. haloes) were very weak (all Rho values ≤ 0.164).

CONCLUSIONS

Small incision lenticule extraction induced significant amounts of corneal HOAs that, however, showed no clear relationships to patient-reported QOV or specific long-term visual symptoms.

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation after Small Incision Lenticule Extraction

With more than 1.5 million Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) procedures having already been performed worldwide in an ageing population, intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in post-SMILE eyes will inevitably become a common challenge for ophthalmologists. Since no refractive outcomes of cataract surgery following SMILE have been published, there is a lack of empirical data for optimizing IOL power calculation. Using the ray tracing as the standard of reference - a purely physical method that obviates the need for any empirical optimization - we analyzed the agreement of various IOL power calculation formulas derived from the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ASCRS) post-keratorefractive surgery online calculator. In our study of 88 post-SMILE eyes, the Masket formula showed the smallest mean prediction error [-0.36 ± 0.32 diopters (D)] and median absolute error (0.33D) and yielded the largest percentage of eyes within ±0.50D (70%) in reference to ray tracing. Non-inferior refractive prediction errors and ±0.50D accuracies were achieved by the Barrett True K, Barrett True K No History and the Potvin-Hill formula. Use of these formulas in conjunction with ray tracing is recommended until sufficient data for empirical optimization of IOL power calculation after SMILE is available.

The Modulation of Laser Refractive Surgery on Sensory Eye Dominance of Anisometropia

Purpose

To evaluate the effect of laser refractive surgery on sensory eye dominance of anisometropia.

Methods

A total of 156 subjects with nonanisometropic myopia and 70 subjects with anisometropic myopia were enrolled in the first part of the study. The dichoptic motion coherence threshold technique was applied to collect the normal dataset and distribution of sensory eye dominance. The second part of the study included 40 subjects with nonanisometropic myopia and 40 subjects with anisometropic myopia who received the femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (Fs-LASIK). A comprehensive ophthalmologic evaluation was performed with particular attention to sensory eye dominance preoperatively and one-week and one-month postoperatively. The ocular dominance index (ODI) was applied to evaluate the subject's overall degree of sensory ocular dominance. Visual acuity, sighting eye dominance, and stereo acuity were also accessed.

Results

In experiment one, the mean ODI in the nonanisometropic group and the anisometropic group was 1.48 ± 0.63 and 1.95 ± 1.07, respectively. The ODI values of the anisometropic group were significantly higher than those of the nonanisometropic group (Mann–Whitney U test, P < 0.001). The demographics information and the distribution of ODI values in both groups are summarized in tables and figures. In experiment two, all LASIK procedures were uneventful and no postoperative complications were observed during the postoperative follow-up. Preoperatively, the ODI values of the anisometropic LASIK group were significantly higher than those of the nonanisometropic LASIK group, which was consistent with the results of part 1. However, one week after operation, the mean ODI values of the anisometropic LASIK group had significantly decreased from 1.89 ± 1.09 to 1.39 ± 0.44. And, the mean ODI values slightly increased to 1.65 ± 0.61 one-month postoperatively. In the nonanisometropic LASIK group, there were no statistically significant differences of ODI changes among preoperative, post-one-week and post-one-month visits. The demographics information and the changes of ODI of both LASIK groups are summarized in tables and figures.

Conclusion

Stronger sensory eye dominance is seen in the subjects with anisometropic myopia compared to subjects with nonanisometropic myopia. The strong sensory dominance of anisometropia becomes more balanced at one week of postoperation but returns to the preoperative level after one month. Laser refractive surgery had a short-term modulation of sensory eye dominance.

Determinants of subjective patient-reported quality of vision after small-incision lenticule extraction

PURPOSE

To characterize patient-reported long-term quality of vision (QoV) after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), and to identify potential clinical parameters that might predispose to experiencing deteriorated visual quality.

SETTING

University Eye Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.

DESIGN

Prospective cross-sectional study.

METHODS

For the assessment and scoring of visual symptoms, the Quality of Vision questionnaire was employed, which constitutes a clinically validated, linear-scaled 30-item instrument providing a QoV score on three scales (symptom frequency, severity, and bothersome). Subgroup analyses were performed for patient subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics (eg, age) and treatment parameters (eg, surgical refractive correction) as well as refractive outcomes (eg, residual refraction) and visual outcomes (eg, uncorrected distance visual acuity [UDVA]).

RESULTS

The study comprised 394 eyes of 197 patients (117 women [59.4%], 80 men [40.6%]) were included with a mean postoperative follow-up of 24.4 months ± 14.1 (SD). The QoV scores for symptom frequency, severity, and bothersome were 34.63 ± 13.69, 29.60 ± 12.38, and 24.56 ± 16.00, respectively. Patients with a preoperative binocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) of 20/12.5 or better, patients who lost 1 or more lines of UDVA as compared with preoperative CDVA, patients older than the age of 40, and patients with inadvertent anisometropia more than 0.375 diopters reported worse QoV scores.

CONCLUSION

The relationship between objective clinical parameters and patient-reported subjective QoV after SMILE seems complex. Defined prognostic factors that convey a higher risk for experiencing visual disturbances were identifiable and should be discussed with patients seeking SMILE treatment during preoperative counseling.

Presbyopia and the aging eye: Existing refractive approaches and their potential impact on dry eye signs and symptoms

Every part of the human body is subject to aging, including the eye. An increased prevalence of dry eye disease with age is widely acknowledged. Aging threatens ocular surface homeostasis, altering the normal functioning of the lacrimal functional unit and potentially leading to signs and symptoms of dry eye. Additional age-related processes take place within the crystalline lens, leading to presbyopia and cataractogenesis. Correction strategies for presbyopia and cataracts may directly or indirectly challenge the ocular surface. Contact lenses disturb the normal structure of the tear film and can interact negatively with the ocular surface, further deteriorating an already unbalanced tear film in presbyopes, however, newer contact lens designs can overcome some of these issues. Moreover, cataract and corneal refractive surgeries sever corneal nerves and disrupt the corneal epithelium and ocular surface, which can influence surgical outcomes and aggravate dryness symptoms in older age groups. This review summarises the current understanding of how the invasive nature of contact lens wear and cataract and refractive surgery influence signs and symptoms of ocular dryness in an aging population.

Surface Ablation Versus CIRCLE for Myopic Enhancement After SMILE: A Matched Comparative Study

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of enhancement after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) using surface ablation versus the VisuMax CIRCLE option (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany), which converts the SMILE cap into a femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis flap.

METHODS

The databases of the SMILE Eyes centers in Munich, Marburg, and Cologne, Germany, and Linz, Austria, were screened for eyes that had undergone enhancement using surface ablation with mitomycin C or CIRCLE. Eyes from both enhancement methods suitable for a retrospective matched analysis were identified based on pre-SMILE and pre-enhancement mean refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE), astigmatism, age, and corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity (CDVA/UDVA). Refractive and functional outcomes were compared after a follow-up of 3 months.

RESULTS

After the application of the matching criteria on 2,803 SMILE procedures, 24 eyes (12 in each group) with a follow-up of 3 months or longer were available for analysis. Enhancement was performed after a mean 9.7 ± 7.2 (surface ablation) and 11.0 ± 4.4 (CIRCLE) months for a residual MRSE of -0.91 ± 0.55 (surface ablation) and -0.90 ± 0.61 (CIRCLE) diopters. At 3 months, residual MRSE showed comparable accuracy with -0.07 ± 0.19 (surface ablation) and 0.04 ± 0.22 (CIRCLE) diopters (P = .18). UDVA improvement was similar to a final value of 0.02 ± 0.10 (surface ablation) versus 0.03 ± 0.07 (CIRCLE) logMAR (P = .78). Only one eye in the surface ablation group and no eye in the CIRCLE group lost one line of CDVA. At 3 months, the safety (surface ablation: 1.00, CIRCLE: 1.06; P = .36) and efficacy (surface ablation: 0.95, CIRCLE: 1.03; P = .36) indices were equivalent. In terms of speed of visual recovery, at week 1 UDVA and CDVA were significantly better after CIRCLE than surface ablation (P = .008 and .002, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In this first study directly comparing surface ablation versus CIRCLE enhancement after SMILE, both methods yielded comparable results at 3 months. However, CIRCLE re-treated eyes showed a markedly increased speed of recovery concerning UDVA and CDVA compared to surface ablation. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(5):294-300.].

Safety and satisfaction of myopic small-incision lenticule extraction combined with monovision

Background

To investigate the safety and optical quality of small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) combined with monovision, and patient satisfaction with the procedure.

Methods

The present study assessed a non-random case series involving 60 eyes of 30 patients (mean age 45.53 ± 3.20 years [range 41 to 52 years]) treated bilaterally using the VisuMax 500 system (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) between January and July 2016. The target refraction was plano for the distance eye, and between − 0.5 and − 1.75 diopters (D) for the near eye. Visual acuity, refraction errors, ocular aberrations, and satisfaction questionnaire scores were calculated 1 year after surgery.

Results

All surgeries were uneventful, with a mean safety index of 1.03 and 1.04 in dominant and nondominant eyes, respectively. Binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity of all patients was ≥20/32, while binocular uncorrected near visual acuity was ≥20/40 1 year postoperatively. Higher-order aberration (0.45 ± 0.14, 0.51 ± 0.15 μm), spherical (0.18 ± 0.15, 0.21 ± 0.14 μm) and coma aberration (0.31 ± 0.16, 0.27 ± 0.17 μm) were identical between dominant and nondominant eyes after surgery. The overall satisfaction rate was 86.7% (26/30), with large contributions from age (OR = 1.76 95% CI: 1.03–2.53; P = 0.036). Binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity was related to preoperative spherical diopter (r = − 0.500; P = 0.005).

Conclusions

Monovision appears to be a safe and effective option for myopia patients with presbyopia who are considering the SMILE procedure. Patients with younger age were more satisfied with the procedure.

Correction of presbyopia: An integrated update for the practical surgeon

Presbyopia results from loss or insufficiency of the eye's accommodative ability, and clinically manifests as the inability to focus near objects on the retina. It is one of the most common causes of visual impairment worldwide especially in adults of productive or working age. Various means of compensating for the loss of accommodative ability have been devised from optical tools such as spectacles and contact lenses, to topical medications and to surgical procedures. A comprehensive search on journal articles about topical and surgical correction of presbyopia was undertaken. The various techniques for presbyopia correction, as enumerated in these articles, are discussed in this paper with the addition of our personal experience and perspective on the future of these techniques.