scholarly journals Comparison of clinical outcomes of implantable collamer lens versus femtosecondlaser in situ keratomileusis and small incision lenticule extraction for moderate-to-high myopia and myopic astigmatism correction

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 400-415
Author(s):  
Yen Hai Tran ◽  
Huy Dinh Minh Tran ◽  
Ly Thi-Hai Tran ◽  
Dung Thi Mong Nguyen ◽  
Chuong Nguyen Thao Le ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Myopia ◽  
Linear Models ◽  
Laser In Situ Keratomileusis ◽  
Small Incision Lenticule Extraction ◽  
Implantable Collamer Lens ◽  
Small Incision ◽  
Lenticule Extraction ◽  
Safety Indices ◽  
Myopic Astigmatism

Purpose: To compare safety, efficacy, stability, and predictability of implantable collamer lens (ICL) with femtosecond-laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) or small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for the correction of moderate-to-high myopia/myopic astigmatism. Study design: We retrospectively collected data from patients with moderate-to-high myopia/myopic astigmatism (spherical equivalent [SE] ≥ −3.00 diopters [D]) who underwent ICL (48 eyes), FS-LASIK (36 eyes), or SMILE (86 eyes) at Hai Yen Eye Center from October 2016 to February 2018. Materials and methods: The Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare pre- and postoperative patients’ characteristics of ICL with SMILE or FS-LASIK. Generalized linear models with unstructured correlation matrix and robust standard errors were used to analyze efficacy and safety indices; logistic regression was used for cylinder predictability. Results: After controlling for age, preoperative SE, and preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (pCDVA), SMILE had significantly lower safety indices (Coefficient = −0.04, 95% CI = −0.07–−0.01) and efficacy indices (Coefficient = −0.10, 95% CI = −0.20–−0.01) than did ICL, while FS-LASIK was not significantly different from ICL (Coefficient = −0.02, 95% CI = −0.06–0.02 and Coefficient = −0.01, 95% CI= −0.10–0.09, respectively). ICL SEswere stable over 12 months after surgery. However, in FS-LASIK and SMILE, SEs significantly decreased at 12 months compared with 6 months after surgery. The percentage of eyes that underwent FS-LASIK and had target SEs within ±0.5 D at 12 months was significantly lower than those that underwent ICL (OR = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.02–0.85), after controlling for age, preoperative SE, and pCDVA. Conclusion: For the correction of moderate-to-high myopia/myopic astigmatism, ICL seems to perform better than SMILE and FS-LASIK.

scholarly journals Three-year outcomes of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for myopia and myopic astigmatism

2018 ◽  
Vol 103 (4) ◽  
pp. 565-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tian Han ◽  
Ye Xu ◽  
Xiao Han ◽  
Li Zeng ◽  
Jianmin Shang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Femtosecond Laser ◽  
Laser In Situ Keratomileusis ◽  
Small Incision Lenticule Extraction ◽  
Small Incision ◽  
Lenticule Extraction ◽  
Myopic Astigmatism

AimsTo compare long-term clinical outcomes following small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for myopia and myopic astigmatism correction.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we enrolled a total of 101 patients (101 eyes) who underwent SMILE or FS-LASIK 3 years prior. Measured parameters included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), manifest refraction and corneal wavefront aberrations.ResultsNo significant differences in patient characteristics were found between the two groups. At the 3-year follow-up, UDVA was better than or equal to 20/20 in 90% and 85% (p=0.540) of the eyes; the efficacy indexes were 1.05±0.19 and 1.01±0.21 in the SMILE and FS-LASIK groups, respectively (p=0.352). Safety indexes were 1.19±0.17 and 1.15±0.20 in the SMILE and FS-LASIK groups, respectively (p=0.307). Eighty per cent and 65% of eyes were within ±0.50 D of the attempted spherical equivalent correction after SMILE and FS-LASIK, respectively (p=0.164). Vector analysis revealed no significant differences in astigmatic correction between the two groups (p>0.05). Surgically induced spherical aberration was higher in the FS-LASIK group than in the SMILE group (p<0.001).ConclusionLong-term follow-up analysis suggested that both SMILE and FS-LASIK were safe and equally effective for myopic and astigmatic correction.

scholarly journals SMILE and Wavefront-Guided LASIK Out-Compete Other Refractive Surgeries in Ameliorating the Induction of High-Order Aberrations in Anterior Corneal Surface

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min-jie Ye ◽  
Cai-yuan Liu ◽  
Rong-feng Liao ◽  
Zheng-yu Gu ◽  
Bing-ying Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spherical Aberration ◽  
Laser In Situ Keratomileusis ◽  
Small Incision Lenticule Extraction ◽  
Corneal Surface ◽  
Small Incision ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Lenticule Extraction ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
High Order Aberrations

Purpose. To compare the change of anterior corneal higher-order aberrations (HOAs) after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), wavefront-guided LASIK with iris registration (WF-LASIK), femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK), and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).Methods. In a prospective study, 82 eyes underwent LASIK, 119 eyes underwent WF-LASIK, 88 eyes underwent FS-LASIK, and 170 eyes underwent SMILE surgery. HOAs were measured with Pentacam device preoperatively and 6 months after surgery. The aberrations were described as Zernike polynomials, and analysis focused on total HOAs, spherical aberration (SA), horizontal coma, and vertical coma over 6 mm diameter central corneal zone.Results. Six months postoperatively, all procedures result in increase of anterior corneal total HOAs and SA. There were no significant differences in the induced HOAs between LASIK and FS-LASIK, while SMILE induced fewer total HOAs and SA compared with LASIK and FS-LASIK. Similarly, WF-LASIK also induced less total HOAs than LASIK and FS-LASIK, but only fewer SA than FS-LASIK (P<0.05). No significant difference could be detected in the induced total HOAs and SA between SMILE and WF-LASIK, whereas SMILE induced more horizontal coma and vertical coma compared with WF-LASIK (P<0.05).Conclusion. FS-LASIK and LASIK induced comparable anterior corneal HOAs. Compared to LASIK and FS-LASIK, both SMILE and WF-LASIK showed advantages in inducing less total HOAs. In addition, SMILE also possesses better ability to reduce the induction of SA in comparison with LASIK and FS-LASIK. However, SMILE induced more horizontal coma and vertical coma compared with WF-LASIK, indicating that the centration of SMILE procedure is probably less precise than WF-LASIK.

Vector analysis of small incision lenticule extraction and toric implantable collamer lens implantation for astigmatism correction

2020 ◽  
pp. 112067212093060
Author(s):  
Ting Wan ◽  
Houfa Yin ◽  
Zhiyi Wu ◽  
Yabo Yang
Keyword(s):  
Vector Analysis ◽  
Small Incision Lenticule Extraction ◽  
Implantable Collamer Lens ◽  
Small Incision ◽  
Astigmatism Correction ◽  
Induced Astigmatism ◽  
Lenticule Extraction ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Surgically Induced ◽  
Myopic Astigmatism

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and toric implantable collamer lens (TICL) implantation for myopic astigmatism correction using vector analysis. Methods: In this retrospective study, 171 eyes of 171 patients with cylinder ⩾1.0 diopters (D) were recruited, with 97 eyes underwent SMILE and 74 eyes underwent TICL implantation. Preoperative and 3-months postoperative visual and refractive results were examined. The astigmatism correction, graded by the degree of preoperative cylinder was compared between two groups using vector analysis. Results: At 3-months postoperatively, the residual cylinder was −0.10 ± 0.21 D in the SMILE group and −0.30 ± 0.32 D in the TCL group ( p < 0.05). Furthermore, 98% and 85% of eyes had the cylinder within ±0.5 D in the SMILE and TICL group, respectively. The vector analysis revealed similar target induced astigmatism vector in two groups. However, the difference vector, magnitude of error, angle of error, and index of success were significantly higher (0.30 ± 0.32 D, −0.19 ± 0.25, −2° ± 4.35°, and 0.16 ± 0.17 D, respectively) in the TICL group than the values in the SMILE group (0.10 ± 0.21 D, −0.05 ± 0.20, −0.03° ± 2.13°, and 0.05 ± 0.12, respectively), regardless of the degree of preoperative cylinder (all p < 0.05). For preoperative cylinder < 2.0 D, surgically induced astigmatism vector and correction index in the SMILE group were higher than those in the TICL group ( p < 0.05). Conclusion: Both SMILE and TICL implantation are effective techniques for myopic astigmatism correction. However, the accuracy of correction in the magnitude and axis of astigmatism with SMILE was better than that achieved with TICL implantation.

scholarly journals Implantable collamer lens versus small incision lenticule extraction for high myopia correction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Cao ◽  
Jingshang Zhang ◽  
Jinda Wang ◽  
Mayinuer Yusufu ◽  
Shanshan Jin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Myopia ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Safety Index ◽  
Small Incision Lenticule Extraction ◽  
Implantable Collamer Lens ◽  
Small Incision ◽  
Lenticule Extraction ◽  
Efficacy Index

Abstract Purpose To compare the efficacy, safety, predictability and visual quality between implantable collamer lens (ICL) implantation and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for high myopia correction in adults. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. A comprehensive literature search was done based on databases including PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The efficacy index, safety index, changes in Snellen lines of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), predictability (difference between post-operative and attempted spherical equivalent error, SER), incidence of halos, and change in higher-order aberrations (HOAs) were compared. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to estimate continuous outcomes, risk ratio (RR) and 95%CI was used to estimate categorical outcomes. Results Five observational studies involving 555 eyes were included in this review. Studies’ sample sizes (eyes) ranged from 76 to 197. Subjects’ refraction ranged from -6 diopter (D) to -12D. Study duration of most researches were 6 months or 12 months. Compared to SMILE, ICL implantation showed better efficacy index (MD=0.09, 95%CI:0.01 to 0.16) and better safety index (MD=0.08, 95%CI: 0.00 to 0.16). Compared with SMILE, more ICL-treated eyes gained one or more Snellen lines of CDVA (RR=1.54, 95%CI:1.28 to 1.86), more gained two or more lines (RR=2.09, 95%CI:1.40 to 3.13), less lost one or more lines (RR=0.17, 95%CI:0.05 to 0.63). There was no difference in predictability between two treatments, RRs of predictability of within ±0.5D and ±1D were 1.13 (95%CI: 0.94 to 1.36) and 1.00 (95%CI: 0.98 to 1.02). Compared with SMILE, ICL implantation came with a higher risk of halos [RR=1.79, 95%CI: 1.48 to 2.16] and less increase in total HOAs (MD=-0.23, 95%CI: -0.42 to -0.03). Conclusion Compared with SMILE, ICL implantation showed a higher risk of halos, but equal performance on SER control, and better performance on efficacy index, safety index, CDVA improvement and HOAs control. Overall, ICL implantation might be a better choice for high myopia correction in adults.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document