SMILE and FS-LASIK produced distinct changes in anterior corneal shape evident in different postoperative corneal curvatures and power measurements between the two groups. Postoperative HOAs were much lower after SMILE as compared to FS-LASIK.

No abstract

Ray tracing calculations based on Scheimpflug imaging accurately assessed the change in manifest refraction due to corneal laser surgery.

Almost 25% of the variation after small-incision lenticule extraction for myopic astigmatism might be explained by the size of the attempted cylinder correction and ATR/WTR astigmatism. Incorporating these parameters in preoperative planning might produce more consistent results in high cylinder corrections.

Purpose: To investigate whether postoperative-induced refractive astigmatism after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) could be predicted by preoperative objective astigmatism measured with autorefraction, keratometry, and Scheimpflug tomography. Setting: University eye clinic. Design: Retrospective case series. Methods: Only eyes without preoperative subjective astigmatism treated with SMILE for myopia were included. Postoperative subjective astigmatism was compared with preoperative objective astigmatism. Examinations were performed before SMILE and 3 months postoperatively and included subjective refraction, keratometry, autorefraction, and Scheimpflug tomographer measurements. Astigmatism was analyzed using double-angle plots and multivariate statistics. Results: A total of 358 eyes of 358 patients were included. The mean preoperative sphere was −7.33 diopter (D) ± 1.46 (SD). The postoperative spherical equivalent was −0.30 ± 0.49 D. Postoperatively, 79.6% and 98.9% of patients had a subjective cylinder ≤0.50 D and ≤1.00 D, respectively. Preoperative objective astigmatism measured with keratometry, autorefraction, and Scheimpflug tomography was significantly different (P < .05) from postoperative subjective refraction when all patients were analyzed; for patients with postoperative refractive astigmatism ≥0.50 D, preoperative astigmatism with keratometry and Scheimpflug tomography was not significantly different from postoperative refractive astigmatism. Preoperative objective astigmatism ≥0.50 D increased the risk ratio of postoperative subjective astigmatism ≥0.50 D by 2.2 (P < .001). Conclusions: Preoperative objective astigmatism could not be directly interchanged with postoperative subjective astigmatism, but the presence of preoperative astigmatism ≥0.50 D doubled the risk of inducing a postoperative subjective astigmatism ≥0.50 D. Extra care when performing subjective refraction should be taken in the presence of high objective astigmatism.

Purpose: To assess whether small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for high myopia reduces the binocular visual function assessed by stereoacuity, binocular visual acuity, binocular contrast sensitivity, and binocular summation. Setting: University hospital. Design: Prospective case series. Methods: Patients with a myopic spherical equivalent of at least 6.00 diopters (D) scheduled for SMILE aimed at emmetropia were included. Psychophysical testing was performed with correction preoperatively but no correction postoperatively. Stereoacuity was assessed with the Randot Circles test and the near Frisby test, visual acuity (monocular and binocular) was assessed with high-contrast Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study charts, and contrast sensitivity (monocular and binocular) was assessed with the Pelli-Robson chart and the Freiburg Acuity and Contrast Test. Binocular summation was calculated by comparing the binocular score against the best monocular score. Results: A total of 138 eyes of 69 patients were included. The mean spherical equivalent changed from −7.46 D ± 1.06 (SD) to −0.23 D ± 0.40 postoperatively. Stereoacuity did not change significantly postoperatively; median change (interquartile range) was −0.32 (−6.21 to 1.55) seconds of arc with the Frisby test and 0.00 (−7.5 to 5.0) seconds of arc with the Randot test (P ≥ .06). Binocular postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity was not different from the preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (P = .40). Contrast sensitivity declined slightly monocularly with both tests of contrast sensitivity but was unaltered binocularly (P ≥ .08). Binocular summation for visual acuity and contrast sensitivity was unaltered following surgery (P ≥ .09). Conclusions: SMILE for high myopia did not reduce the binocular function assessed by stereoacuity, binocular visual acuity, binocular contrast sensitivity, and binocular summation.

Purpose To examine whether the amplitude of accommodation, the accommodative response, and the accommodative facility is affected and correlated with changes in higher-order aberrations for patients with high myopia surgically treated with small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Methods 35 highly myopic eyes (myopic spherical equivalent of at least 6 diopters) of 35 patients treated with SMILE were included. Assessments were made before and 3 months after surgery. Donders push-up-method was used to measure the amplitude of accommodation. The accommodative response was assessed using an open-field autorefractor”Grand Seiko WAM-5500” (Grand Seiko Co. Ltd., Hiroshima, Japan) in combination with a Badal optometer and stimuli of accommodation at 0.0, 0.5, 1.25, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 D, respectively. Accommodative facility was measured at 40 cm with ±2,00D flipper lenses. All measurements of accommodation were performed monocularly with the refractive error corrected with soft contact lenses. Results The amplitude of accommodation did not change statistically significantly (mean difference -0.24 D (SD 0.98), 95% CI of mean difference -0.58 D to 0.11 D, paired-sample t(34) = -1.39; P = 0.17). The accommodative responses at 0.0, 0.5, 1.25, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 D did not statistically significantly change either (F(6,29) = 1.15; P = .36). Finally, the accommodative facility was also unchanged with a mean difference of 1.11 cycles per minute (SD 5.11, 95% CI of mean difference -0.64 to 2.87, paired-sample t(34) = 1.29; P = 0.21). No clinically significant associations between changes in accommodation and higher-order aberrations were found. Conclusions SMILE does not alter the amplitude of accommodation, the accommodative response, nor the accommodative facility for highly myopic patients, and the surgically induced corneal higher-order aberrations do not affect the accommodative function.

No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.