Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) refractive surgery: Our initial experience

Background

Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) is femtosecond laser based, minimally invasive, flap-free refractive surgery gaining worldwide acceptance as a safe alternative to flap based refractive surgeries.

Methods

A retrospective data review study was done where preoperative and postoperative data were collected for 202 eyes of 101 patients who underwent SMILE surgery at a tertiary care Armed Forces hospital from Jan 2019 to Dec 2019. All participants included in the study were followed up for 3 months postoperative period.

Results

Mean age of the participants was 24.139 ± 0.515 years (males 22.1 years, females 25.3 years). Male participants were 36 (72 eyes) while female participants were 65 (130 eyes). Of the participants, 75.2% underwent the procedure for cosmetic indication, while 24.8% underwent clearing some medical examination later. Preoperative UCVA was 1.049 ± 0.028 logMAR units, which improved on first postoperative day to 0.038 ± 0.01 logMAR units, at 1 wk 0.015 ± 0.01 logMAR units, at 1 month 0.006 ± 0.005 logMAR units and at 3 months postoperative period to 0.03 ± 0.003 logMAR units. There were two adverse events of difficult lenticule extraction with small (<1 mm) cap tear.

Conclusion

SMILE surgery is a flap-free refractive surgical technique. It reduces postoperative complications like dry eyes and flap-related complications. Hence, it may be recommended for all serving personnel after a thorough preoperative screening protocol.

Small-incision lenticule extraction in the U.S. military: prospective study of visual and military task performance

PURPOSE

To assess early visual outcomes and military task performance after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) among U.S. military service members.

SETTING

Warfighter Refractive Eye Surgery Program and Research Center and Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

DESIGN

Single-center, prospective, observational study.

METHODS

The study was composed of active duty service members (n = 37) electing to undergo SMILE for myopia or myopic astigmatism. Testing performed preoperatively and at 1 month and 3 months postoperatively included uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities, wavefront aberrometry, low-contrast visual acuity (LCVA), contrast sensitivity, and vision-related questionnaire. 14 participants underwent rifle marksmanship with spectacle correction before and without correction at 6 to 8 weeks postoperatively.

RESULTS

At 3 months postoperatively, the efficacy index was 0.96 and the safety index was 1.03. UDVA was ≥20/20 in 69 (96%) of eyes. LCVA change from baseline was significant under night vision condition. Eye problems contributed to 10% work and 20% activity impairments, both of which decreased to 0% (P = .001). The overall satisfaction rating for SMILE was high at 90.9 (95% CI, 85.3 to 96.5), and 95% of participants would be willing to undergo the procedure again. The median scores between preoperative and 6 to 8 weeks postoperative firing performance were comparable (34 vs 35, with and without correction, respectively; P = .247).

CONCLUSIONS

After the early recovery period, SMILE seems to preserve quality of vision, which appears to facilitate the accomplishment of tasks related to their work as military service members as well as performing activities outside of work.

Wavefront excimer laser refractive surgery for adults with refractive errors

BACKGROUND

Refractive errors (conditions in which the eye fails to focus objects accurately on the retina due to defects in the refractive system), are the most common cause of visual impairment. Myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism are low-order aberrations, usually corrected with spectacles, contact lenses, or conventional refractive surgery. Higher-order aberrations (HOAs) can be quantified with wavefront aberration instruments and corrected using wavefront-guided or wavefront-optimized laser surgery. Wavefront-guided ablations are based on preoperative measurements of HOAs; wavefront-optimized ablations are designed to minimize induction of new HOAs while preserving naturally occurring aberrations. Two wavefront procedures are expected to produce better visual acuity than conventional procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to compare effectiveness and safety of wavefront procedures, laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) or laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) versus corresponding conventional procedures, for correcting refractive errors in adults for postoperative uncorrected visual acuity, residual refractive errors, and residual HOAs. The secondary objective was to compare two wavefront procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2019, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS); the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 6 August 2019. We imposed no restrictions by language or year of publication. We used the Science Citation Index (September 2013) and searched the reference lists of included trials to identify additional relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing either wavefront modified with conventional refractive surgery or wavefront-optimized with wavefront-guided refractive surgery in participants aged ⪰ 18 years with refractive errors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 33 RCTs conducted in Asia, Europe and United States, totaling 1499 participants (2797 eyes). Participants had refractive errors ranging from high myopia to low hyperopia. Studies reported at least one of the following review-specific outcomes based on proportions of eyes: with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better, without loss of one or more lines of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), within ± 0.50 diopters (D) of target refraction, with HOAs and adverse events. Study characteristics and risk of bias Participants were mostly women, mean age 29 and 53 years, and without previous refractive surgery, ocular pathology or systemic comorbidity. We could not judge risks of bias for most domains of most studies. Most studies in which both eyes of a participant were analyzed failed to account for correlations between two eyes in the analysis and reporting of outcomes. Findings For the primary comparison between wavefront (PRK or LASIK or LASEK) and corresponding conventional procedures, 12-month outcome data were available from only one study of PRK with 70 participants. No evidence of more favorable outcomes of wavefront PRK on proportion of eyes: with UCVA of 20/20 or better (risk ratio [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.24); without loss of one or more lines of BSCVA (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09); within ± 0.5 D of target refraction (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.24); and mean spherical equivalent (mean difference [MD] 0.04, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.18). The evidence for each effect estimate was of low certainty. No study reported HOAs at 12 months. At six months, the findings of two to eight studies showed that overall effect estimates and estimates by subgroup of PRK or LASIK or LASEK were consistent with those for PRK at 12 month, and suggest no difference in all outcomes. The certainty of evidence for each outcome was low. For the comparison between wavefront-optimized and wavefront-guided procedures at 12 months, the overall effect estimates for proportion of eyes: with UCVA of 20/20 or better (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.02; 5 studies, 618 participants); without loss of one or more lines of BSCVA (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.02; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 622 participants); within ± 0.5 diopters of target refraction (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09; I² = 33%; 4 studies, 480 participants) and mean HOAs (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.07; I² = 41%; 5 studies, 622 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between the two groups. Owing to substantial heterogeneity, we did not calculate an overall effect estimate for mean spherical equivalent at 12 months, but point estimates consistently suggested no difference between wavefront-optimized PRK versus wavefront-guided PRK. However, wavefront-optimized LASIK compared with wavefront-guided LASIK may improve mean spherical equivalent (MD -0.14 D, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.09; 4 studies, 472 participants). All effect estimates were of low certainty of evidence. At six months, the results were consistent with those at 12 months based on two to six studies. The findings suggest no difference between two wavefront procedures for any of the outcomes assessed, except for the subgroup of wavefront-optimized LASIK which showed probable improvement in mean spherical equivalent (MD -0.12 D, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.05; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 280 participants; low certainty of evidence) relative to wavefront-guided LASIK. We found a single study comparing wavefront-guided LASIK versus wavefront-guided PRK at six and 12 months. At both time points, effect estimates consistently supported no difference between two procedures. The certain of evidence was very low for all estimates. Adverse events Significant visual loss or optical side effects that were reported were similar between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that at 12 months and six months postoperatively, there was no important difference between wavefront versus conventional refractive surgery or between wavefront-optimized versus wavefront-guided surgery in the clinical outcomes analyzed. The low certainty of the cumulative evidence reported to date suggests that further randomized comparisons of these surgical approaches would provide more precise estimates of effects but are unlikely to modify our conclusions. Future trials may elect to focus on participant-reported outcomes such as satisfaction with vision before and after surgery and effects of remaining visual aberrations, in addition to contrast sensitivity and clinical outcomes analyzed in this review.

Outcome comparison between wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) eye surgery is widely used for patients at risk for corneal ectasia to maintain an aspheric corneal shape. Wavefront-guided (WFG) ablation profile was designed to reduce pre-existing higher-order aberrations (HOA). We aimed to compare the corneal aberrations and visual outcomes between WFG and Wavefront Optimized (WFO) PRK in patients with myopia. Eight randomized clinical trials were included. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CENTRAL at March 2020, and updated the search in September 2020 using relevant keywords, The data were extracted and pooled as Mean Difference (MD) with a 95% Confidence Interval (CI), using Review Manager software (version 5.4). Pooled results showed no significance between Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity (UDVA) and Corrected Distance Visual Acuity (CDVA) between both groups underwent WFG and WFO PPR after three months follow up (MD = - 0.03; 95% CI: [-0.06, 0.00]; P = 0.07), (MD = - 0.02; 95% CI: [-0.04, 0.01]; P = 0.22) respectively. Although, no significant difference between mean manifest cylinder after three and 12 months follow up, but the total MD for mean manifest cylinder difference was significantly lower with the WFG treatment method (MD = - 0.12, (95% CI: [0.23:-0.01], P = 0.03). This shows a slight advantage of the WFG over the WFO method. The visual performance showed similarity and excellent refractive outcomes in both WFO and WFG PRK. No significant statistical differences between the two approaches. On further comparison, there was a slight advantage of the WFG over the WFO method.

Visual outcomes after SMILE from the first-year experience at a U.S. military refractive surgery center and comparison with PRK and LASIK outcomes

PURPOSE

To assess the visual outcomes of small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) after the first year of treatments at a military refractive surgery center and compare with photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) outcomes during the same period.

SETTING

Warfighter Refractive Eye Surgery Program and Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

METHODS

Records of service members who underwent SMILE, PRK, or LASIK for myopia from March 2017 to February 2018 were reviewed. Preoperative and up to 6-month postoperative data were collected. Visual outcomes were compared between treatments.

RESULTS

Of 563 treated eyes, 173 (30.7%) underwent SMILE, 304 (54.0%) PRK, and 86 (15.3%) LASIK. In comparing SMILE with PRK 1 month postoperatively, SMILE (145 eyes [87.9%]) attained uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) ≥20/20 more vs PRK (214 eyes [73.8%]; P < .01). Similarly, SMILE (152 eyes [94.4%]) achieved more eyes with manifest spherical equivalent (MSE) within ±0.50 diopters (D) from intended target vs PRK (250 eyes [85.9%]; P = .01). None lost ≥1 line of corrected distance visual acuity in SMILE vs PRK (16 eyes [5.5%]; P < .01). Thereafter, there were no other significant differences except SMILE had 117 eyes (95.1%) vs PRK with 224 eyes (99.6%) achieving UDVA ≥20/20 at 3 months postoperatively (P = .01). In assessing SMILE vs LASIK, all parameters were comparable; however, 77 SMILE eyes (96.3%) had MSE within ±0.50 D from target vs 31 LASIK eyes (83.8%) at 6 months postoperatively (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

The first year after SMILE treatments in a U.S. military center demonstrated early postoperative outcomes superior to PRK. SMILE seemed more predictable compared with LASIK.

Preliminary evaluation of the VIsion PERformance (VIPER) simulator

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the VIsion PERformance (VIPER) simulator's ability to assess the functional visual performance in warfighters conducting civilian and military tasks.

METHODS

Thirty service members, aged 25-35 years old with a best corrected distance visual acuity (VA) better than or equal to 20/20 or logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) 0.00, were randomized to locate and identify road signs and mock improvised explosive devices (IEDs) under either daytime conditions or with infrared imagery, with (cc) and without (sc) wearing their habitual correction. Participants also underwent binocular uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) visual assessment, refraction, contrast sensitivity testing and wavefront aberrometry.

RESULTS

The mean age was 28.47 years. The manifest spherical equivalent was - 3.16 ± 1.75 diopters (D), the UDVA in both eyes (OU) was logMAR 0.83 ± 0.47, and the CDVA OU was - 0.11 ± 0.06. For VIPER, the mean difference in the detection distance (DD) for road signs ccDD vs. scDD was 76.7 ± 52.8 m (P < 0.001). The average difference in identification distance (ID) ccID vs. scID was 13.9 ± 6.3 m (P < 0.001). The mean accuracies were 83.5 and 27.9% for cc and sc, respectively (P < 0.001). The regression analysis indicated that a 1.6 m change in the distance accounts for a 1% change in the accuracy (P = 0.002). Without correction, a 4.1 m change accounts for a 1% change in the accuracy (P < 0.001). The average IED ccDD was 29.9 ± 8.2 m, and that for scDD was 13.2 ± 13.6 m (P < 0.001). The average IED ccID was 32.2 ± 6.2 m and that for the scID was 7.4 ± 10.3 m (P < 0.001). The mean IED identification accuracy was 46.7 and 11.4% for cc and sc, respectively (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The preliminary results reflect VIPER's ability to assess functional visual performance when detecting and identifying signs and IEDs. Furthermore, VIPER is able to detect performance changes with and without correction.

Long-Term Outcomes of Refractive Surgery Performed During the Military

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the long-term refractive results of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) performed by the military in a veteran population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital sites (Puget Sound, Buffalo, and Washington D.C.) obtained IRB approval for this multi-center study. Comprehensive ophthalmologic assessment including refraction and keratometry were obtained at the time of the long-term VA examination and compared to the patients' postoperative military records.

RESULTS

Eighty patients (160 eyes) enrolled in this study. At the time of treatment, patients were 21-52 years of age. Long-term post-operative data was available from 4 to 17 years post-operatively. Fifteen percent of the treatment types were LASIK and 85% PRK. At the time of their military post-operative exam (range 3-14 months, mean 4 months), 82% of patients had uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better, and their average manifest refraction was -0.08 D (SD ± 0.48 D). At the time of the long-term ophthalmological exam at the VA medical centers (range 4-11 years, mean of 8.2 years), 49% of patients had an UCVA of 20/20 or better and an average manifest refraction was -0.64 D (SD ± 0.69 D).

CONCLUSION

This is the first long-term study evaluating refractive surgery outcomes up to 17 years in a military population. Our study demonstrates safety after refractive surgery in the military with less than 0.1D increase in myopia per year and strong keratometric stability. Other changes in the eye may be the likely cause for this observed mild refractive shift.

Prospective, Randomized, Contralateral Eye Comparison of Wavefront-Guided and Wavefront-Optimized Laser in Situ Keratomileusis

PURPOSE

To compare outcomes in wavefront-optimized (WFO) laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) to high-resolution wavefront-guided (WFG) LASIK.

DESIGN

Randomized, fellow eye controlled, clinical trial.

METHODS

A total of 200 eyes of 100 patients with myopia or compound myopic astigmatism undergoing bilateral LASIK between October 2015 and February 2017 underwent wavefront-optimized (WFO) LASIK in 1 eye and wavefront-guided (WFG) LASIK in the fellow eye. Each eye was evaluated for uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), contrast sensitivity, refractive error, and wavefront aberrometry. Outcome measurement primarily UDVA at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were safety, predictability, stability, refractive error, CDVA, contrast sensitivity, and higher-order aberrations at 12 months.

RESULTS

WFG LASIK had higher levels of supervision and better contrast sensitivity compared to WFO. Both types had excellent postoperative UDVA results, without a significant difference in either mean UDVA or frequency of achieving a specified UDVA, for example, 20/16 or better (all P > 0.05). The mean gain in lines of CDVA was significantly higher in the WFG than in the WFO group (0.80 ± 0.75 vs 0.62 ± 0.72, respectively; P = 0.04). The WFG cohort had significantly better contrast sensitivity for mean and frequency of achieving >20/40 for <5% low-contrast sensitivity (37.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 27.5-46.7 vs 24.7%; 95% CI, 16.2-33.3, respectively; P = 0.01) and >20/32 for <25% low-contrast sensitivity (10.3%; 95% CI, 4.3-16.4 vs 4%, respectively; 95% CI, 0.0-8.1, respectively; P = 0.04). The WFO group had a significantly higher frequency of <0.25 diopters (D) of refractive astigmatism at 12 months (82.5%; 95% CI, 75.0-90.0; vs 72.1%, respectively; 95% CI, 63.2-81.2; P = 0.02) but not <0.50 D (95.6%; 95% CI, 91.9-99.8; vs 96.9, respectively; 95% CI, 93.5-100; P = 0.61). The WFG group was significantly closer to emmetropia for both sphere and spherical equivalents at all time points. Trefoil was significantly lower in the WFG group and was also significantly lower than preoperative measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Wavefront-optimized and high-resolution wavefront-guided LASIK achieve excellent visual outcomes. Nonetheless, treatments based on a high-resolution aberrometer appear to offer superior results in some regards.

Contrast Sensitivity After Wavefront-Guided and Wavefront-Optimized PRK and LASIK for Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism

PURPOSE

To compare contrast sensitivity among participants undergoing wavefront-guided or wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) or LASIK for the treatment of myopia or myopic astigmatism 12 months after surgery.

METHODS

In a prospective, randomized clinical trial, 215 participants with myopia ranging from -0.50 to -7.25 diopters (D) and less than -3.50 D of manifest astigmatism electing to undergo either LASIK or PRK were randomized to receive wavefront-guided or wavefront-optimized treatment. Corrected Super Vision Test (Precision Vision, La Salle, IL) high contrast and small letter contrast sensitivity, uncorrected postoperative contrast sensitivity function, and uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity were measured preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference within each of the four groups over time when measuring high contrast visual acuity (P < .001) and small letter contrast sensitivity (P < .001), with the most significant decrease occurring 1 month postoperatively. However, there were no significant differences when comparing the four groups for high contrast sensitivity (P = .22) or small letter contrast sensitivity (P = .06). The area under the logarithm of contrast sensitivity function did not differ significantly over time (P = .09) or between groups (P = .16). A pairwise comparison of preoperative to 12-month CDVA showed a significant improvement in all groups (P < .017). The change in CDVA was also significantly different between groups as determined by one-way analysis of variance (P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized PRK and LASIK procedures maintained high contrast, small letter contrast sensitivity, and contrast sensitivity function 12 months postoperatively. Although the recovery period for visual performance was longer for PRK versus LASIK, there was no significant difference in treatment type or treatment profile at 12 months postoperatively. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(9):590-596.].