Comparison Between Q-Adjusted LASIK and Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction for Correction of Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism. (November 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: El-Mayah, Esraa; Anis, Mohamed; Salem, Mohsen; Pinero, David; Hosny, Mohamed
• Is Part Of: Eye & contact lens. Volume 44(2018)Supplement 2
• Publication Date: 2018-11
• Subjects: SMILE -- LASIK -- Custom Q -- HOA; Contact lenses -- Periodicals; Intraocular lenses -- Periodicals; Orthokeratology -- Periodicals; Anterior segment (Eye) -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 617.7523
• DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000532
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1542-2321

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: To compare Q-adjusted femtosecond-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) in terms of safety, efficacy, and predictability, as well as in terms of changes in dry eye parameters, corneal biomechanics, higher-order aberrations (HOAs), and corneal asphericity. Methods: A total of 60 eyes were enrolled in this prospective comparative study: 30 underwent SMILE and 30 underwent FS-LASIK. Changes in manifest refraction, uncorrected distance visual acuity and corrected distance visual acuity, corneal topography, corneal hysteresis (CH), and corneal resistance factor (CRF) (Ocular Response Analyzer, ORA), and dry eye parameters were evaluated during a 3-month follow-up. Results: Mean manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) was −4.17 (±1.86) preoperatively in FS-SMILE group and −3.97 (±2.02) in FS-LASIK group ( P =0.69). Mean postoperative MRSE in FS-SMILE group was −0.25±0.38 diopter (D) and −0.183±0.33 D in FS-SMILE group ( P =0.50). A total of 93% of treated eyes in both groups had a MRSE within ±0.5 D. The mean percentage change of CH was 14.23±17.59 and 18.89±7.2 mm Hg ( P =0.1871) in FS-SMILE and FS-LASIK groups, respectively. The mean percentage change of CRF was 27.43±16.8 and 21.32±17.1 mm Hg ( P =0.1682) in FS-SMILE and FS-LASIK groups, respectively. A statistically significant difference between techniques were found in the values of Schirmer test ( P =0.0002) and tear breakup time ( P =0.0035). Regarding corneal HOAs, no statistically significant differences between groups were found in the change in the root mean square of HOAs ( P =0.2), coma aberration ( P =0.0589), and spherical aberration ( P =0.0543). Conclusion: SMILE is as safe and predictable as FS-LASIK. According to the ORA system, SMILE is not better than FS-LASIK in terms of biomechanical changes. However, SMILE causes less effect on dry eye parameters during the first 3 postoperative months.