Comparison of Clinical and Biomechanical Outcomes of Small Incision Lenticule Extraction With 120- and 140-µm Cap Thickness

Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and corneal biomechanical changes between 120-µm and 140-µm cap thickness after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Methods This prospective study included 150 eyes (150 patients: 91 eyes in the 120-µm group, and 59 eyes in the 140-µm group) who underwent SMILE. Enhanced correction nomograms were applied for patients according to cap thickness. Clinical outcomes, including visual acuity, refraction, and corneal wavefront aberrations, were compared between the two groups. Corneal biomechanics were evaluated using the Corvis ST (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany). Results The mean uncorrected-distance visual acuity, safety and efficacy indices, and refractive predictability were comparable in the 120-µm and 140-µm groups after SMILE. The postoperative total corneal root mean square higher-order aberrations (HOAs) and spherical aberrations was 0.48 ± 0.31 and 0.26 ± 0.10 in the 120-µm group, and 0.53 ± 0.16 and 0.34 ± 0.13 in the 140-µm group, which showed significant differences between the two groups (P = 0.027, and <0.001, respectively). Although corneal stiffness decreased after SMILE in both groups, the changes in the deformation amplitude ratio were significantly higher in the 140-µm group than in the 120-µm group (P = 0.022). Conclusions SMILE with 120-µm and 140-µm cap thickness provided excellent predictable outcomes according to our enhanced correction nomogram. The amount of tissue removal required to achieve the same amount of refractive correction was greater in the thicker cap group. The induction of corneal HOAs and weakening of corneal biomechanics were less pronounced in the thin-cap group, which may be associated with the thinner cap, lesser lenticule thickness, or thicker residual stromal bed. Translational Relevance Although SMILE with different cap thickness was effective, thicker lenticule thickness in the thick-cap group may be associated with induction of HOAs, and corneal stiffness changes.

[1]  Diya Wang,et al.  Influence of Cap Thickness on Corneal Curvature and Corneal Biomechanics After SMILE: A Prospective, Contralateral Eye Study. , 2020, Journal of refractive surgery.

[2]  Bernardo T. Lopes,et al.  Determination of Corneal Biomechanical Behavior in-vivo for Healthy Eyes Using CorVis ST Tonometry: Stress-Strain Index , 2019, Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol..

[3]  Renato Ambrósio,et al.  Adjustment of Spherical Equivalent Correction According to Cap Thickness for Myopic Small Incision Lenticule Extraction. , 2019, Journal of refractive surgery.

[4]  A. Ivarsen,et al.  Refractive Correction and Biomechanical Strength Following SMILE With a 110- or 160-μm Cap Thickness, Evaluated Ex Vivo by Inflation Test. , 2018, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[5]  David P Piñero,et al.  Corneal biomechanics after laser refractive surgery: Unmasking differences between techniques. , 2018, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[6]  D. Reinstein,et al.  Clinical Outcomes of SMILE With a Triple Centration Technique and Corneal Wavefront-Guided Transepithelial PRK in High Astigmatism. , 2018, Journal of refractive surgery.

[7]  F. Liu,et al.  Evaluation of Human Corneal Lenticule Quality After SMILE With Different Cap Thicknesses Using Scanning Electron Microscopy , 2018, Cornea.

[8]  A. Vahdati,et al.  Contralateral Eye Comparison of SMILE and Flap-Based Corneal Refractive Surgery: Computational Analysis of Biomechanical Impact. , 2017, Journal of refractive surgery.

[9]  A. Elsheikh,et al.  Effect of accelerated corneal crosslinking combined with transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy on dynamic corneal response parameters and biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure measured with a dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer in healthy myopic patients. , 2017, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[10]  J. Mehta,et al.  Enhancement after Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes. , 2017, Ophthalmology.

[11]  T. Ye,et al.  Comparison of 120- and 140-&mgr;m SMILE Cap Thickness Results in Eyes With Thick Corneas , 2016, Cornea.

[12]  X. Zhong,et al.  Comparison of Two Cap Thickness in Small Incision Lenticule Extraction: 100μm versus 160μm , 2016, PloS one.

[13]  A. Kampik,et al.  Evaluation of Changes in Human Corneas After Femtosecond Laser-Assisted LASIK and Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) Using Non-Contact Tonometry and Ultra-High-Speed Camera (Corvis ST) , 2016, Current eye research.

[14]  J. Holopainen,et al.  Bilateral Ectasia After Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE). , 2016, Journal of refractive surgery.

[15]  A. Ljubimov,et al.  Progress in corneal wound healing , 2015, Progress in Retinal and Eye Research.

[16]  A. Shama,et al.  Contralateral Eye Comparison Between Femtosecond Small Incision Intrastromal Lenticule Extraction at Depths of 100 and 160 &mgr;m , 2015, Cornea.

[17]  G. Mateu-Figueras,et al.  SMILE Procedures With Four Different Cap Thicknesses for the Correction of Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism. , 2015, Journal of refractive surgery.

[18]  L. Mastropasqua Bilateral ectasia after femtosecond laser-assisted small-incision lenticule extraction. , 2015, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[19]  Xiang-chen Tao,et al.  Corneal ectasia 6.5 months after small-incision lenticule extraction. , 2015, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[20]  M. Torres Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) , 2015 .

[21]  D. Reinstein Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) in 2015 , 2015 .

[22]  Manli Liu,et al.  Differences in the corneal biomechanical changes after SMILE and LASIK. , 2014, Journal of refractive surgery.

[23]  Cynthia J. Roberts,et al.  Comparison of biomechanical effects of small‐incision lenticule extraction and laser in situ keratomileusis: Finite‐element analysis , 2014, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[24]  Lin Zhang,et al.  Corneal biomechanical effects: Small‐incision lenticule extraction versus femtosecond laser–assisted laser in situ keratomileusis , 2014, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[25]  Jing Zhao,et al.  Comparison of corneal deformation parameters after SMILE, LASEK, and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK. , 2014, Journal of refractive surgery.

[26]  K. Shimizu,et al.  Visual and refractive outcomes of femtosecond lenticule extraction and small-incision lenticule extraction for myopia. , 2014, American journal of ophthalmology.

[27]  J. Keum,et al.  Prospective contralateral eye study to compare 80- and 120-μm flap LASIK using the VisuMax femtosecond laser. , 2013, Journal of refractive surgery.

[28]  J. B. Randleman,et al.  Mathematical model to compare the relative tensile strength of the cornea after PRK, LASIK, and small incision lenticule extraction. , 2013, Journal of refractive surgery.

[29]  R. Shah,et al.  Results of small incision lenticule extraction: All‐in‐one femtosecond laser refractive surgery , 2011, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[30]  M. Blum,et al.  Small incision corneal refractive surgery using the small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) procedure for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism: results of a 6 month prospective study , 2010, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[31]  Markus Sticker,et al.  First efficacy and safety study of femtosecond lenticule extraction for the correction of myopia: Six‐month results , 2008, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[32]  S. Slade Thin-flap laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis , 2008, Current opinion in ophthalmology.

[33]  Xing-tao Zhou,et al.  Effect of flap thickness on higher order wavefront aberrations induced by LASIK: a bilateral study. , 2008, Journal of refractive surgery.

[34]  H. Grossniklaus,et al.  Depth-dependent cohesive tensile strength in human donor corneas: implications for refractive surgery. , 2008, Journal of refractive surgery.

[35]  R. Krueger,et al.  First clinical results with the femtosecond neodynium-glass laser in refractive surgery. , 2003, Journal of refractive surgery.

[36]  R. D. Stulting,et al.  Risk factors and prognosis for corneal ectasia after LASIK. , 2002, Ophthalmology.

[37]  Tibor Juhasz,et al.  Femtosecond laser flap creation for laser in situ keratomileusis: six-month follow-up of initial U.S. clinical series. , 2003, Journal of refractive surgery.

[38]  Alan Sugar,et al.  Ultrafast (femtosecond) laser refractive surgery. , 2002, Current opinion in ophthalmology.

[39]  M. R. Bryant,et al.  Corneal tensile strength in fully healed radial keratotomy wounds. , 1994, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[40]  B. Hochheimer,et al.  Corneal wound healing: holographic stress-test analysis. , 1981, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.