Intraocular lens power calculation using total keratometry and ray tracing in eyes with previous small incision lenticule extraction - A case series.

Purpose: To assess the IOL power calculation accuracy in post-SMILE eyes using ray tracing and a range of total keratometry based IOL calculation formulae. Observations: Ray tracing showed excellent predictability in IOL power calculation after SMILE and its accuracy was clinically comparable with the Barrett TK Universal II and Haigis TK formula. Conclusions and importance: Incorporating posterior corneal curvature measurements into IOL power calculation after SMILE seems prudent. The ray tracing method as well as selected TK-based formulae yielded excellent accuracy and should be favored in post-SMILE eyes.

Refractive and Visual Outcomes of SMILE for Compound Myopic Astigmatism With the VISUMAX 800.

PURPOSE: To report the first refractive and visual outcomes of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) using the VISUMAX 800 femtosecond laser (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG). METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of consecutive eyes treated by SMILE using the VISUMAX 800 femtosecond laser at London Vision Clinic, EuroEyes Group, London, United Kingdom. Inclusion criteria were patients aged younger than 45 years, a corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) of 20/20 or better, and the 3-month postoperative timepoint data being available for analysis. Standard outcomes analysis and vector analysis by the Alpins method were performed. RESULTS: During the study period, 128 eyes of 66 consecutive patients were treated. Three-month data were available for 118 eyes (92%), and 10 eyes (8%) were lost to follow-up. The mean attempted spherical equivalent refraction (SEQ) was -4.65 ± 1.91 diopters (D) (range: -1.90 to -10.05 D) and the mean cylinder was -0.98 ± 0.78 D (range: 0.00 to -4.00 D). The mean age was 30 ± 5 years (range: 20 to 43 years), with 54% women and 46% men. Postoperative SEQ was within ±0.50 D in 86% and ±1.00 D in 100% of eyes. Uncorrected distance visual acuity was 20/20 or better in 91% of eyes. One line of CDVA was lost in 8% of eyes, and no eyes lost two or more lines. There was a small but statistically significant increase in contrast sensitivity at 3, 6, 12, and 18 cpd. CONCLUSIONS: Early outcomes data for SMILE with the second generation VISUMAX 800 femtosecond laser demonstrated an effective and safe option equivalent to published first generation VisuMax outcomes for the treatment myopia and astigmatism. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(5):294-301.].

IOL Power Calculations and Cataract Surgery in Eyes with Previous Small Incision Lenticule Extraction.

Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), with over 5 million procedures globally performed, will challenge ophthalmologists in the foreseeable future with accurate intraocular lens power calculations in an ageing population. After more than one decade since the introduction of SMILE, only one case report of cataract surgery with IOL implantation after SMILE is present in the peer-reviewed literature. Hence, the scope of the present multicenter study was to compare the IOL power calculation accuracy in post-SMILE eyes between ray tracing and a range of empirically optimized formulae available in the ASCRS post-keratorefractive surgery IOL power online calculator. In our study of 11 post-SMILE eyes undergoing cataract surgery, ray tracing showed the smallest mean absolute error (0.40 D) and yielded the largest percentage of eyes within ±0.50/±1.00 D (82/91%). The next best conventional formula was the Potvin-Hill formula with a mean absolute error of 0.66 D and an ±0.50/±1.00 D accuracy of 45 and 73%, respectively. Analyzing this first cohort of post-SMILE eyes undergoing cataract surgery and IOL implantation, ray tracing showed superior predictability in IOL power calculation over empirically optimized IOL power calculation formulae that were originally intended for use after Excimer-based keratorefractive procedures.

OCT- versus Scheimpflug-based Total Corneal Power Measurements Changes in Myopic Astigmatic SMILE Procedures.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the value of total keratometry (TK) to estimate corneal power in eyes that underwent SMILE for treatment of myopia or myopic astigmatism in subgroups of low and high astigmatism. METHODS: The difference between preoperative and postoperative measurements of corneal power (ΔTCRP, ΔTK) was compared with the surgically induced refractive change at the corneal plane (ΔSEco) by Pearson correlation. Vector analysis of TCRP- and TK-derived astigmatism was performed to evaluate the corneal astigmatism. Single-angle plots were generated with the AstigMATIC tool for standard astigmatism vector analysis. RESULTS: Paired t-test revealed statistically significant differences in preoperative (p = .02) and postoperative (p = .0455) measurements between TK and TCRP in the group of high-level astigmatism and the postoperative low astigmatism group (p < .01). No significant differences were found in preoperative data in the group of low-level astigmatism (p = .60). The correlation of ΔSEco and TK (low astigmatism, R2 = 0.978; high astigmatism R2 = 0.980) was stronger than the correlation of TCRP 4.0 mm and ΔSEco (low astigmatism, R2 = 0.743; high astigmatism R2 = 0.959) in both astigmatic groups. The vector analysis demonstrated nearly identical results concerning the correction index (CI) for TK and TCRP. Comparing the difference vector (DV) between both parameters, TK-derived results were closer to the optimum. CONCLUSIONS: The findings endorse TK as a reliable measure of corneal power after SMILE in patients with low and high astigmatism.

Total keratometry for determination of true corneal power after myopic small-incision lenticule extraction.

PURPOSE: To gauge the value of total keratometry (TK) to estimate corneal power change in eyes that underwent small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for treatment of myopia or myopic astigmatism. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, and SMILE Eyes Clinic Munich Airport, Munich, Germany. DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional trial. METHODS: A total of 40 eyes of 40 patients who had undergone myopic SMILE were enrolled in this prospective study. Total corneal refractive power (TCRP; Pentacam HR) and TK (IOLMaster 700, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) values were compared with the clinical history method (CHM). The surgically induced changes in TCRP (ΔTCRP) and TK (ΔTK) were also compared with the changes in spherical equivalent on the corneal plane (ΔSEco). RESULTS: Of the 40 eyes analyzed, the correlation between TK and CHM (R2 = 0.91, P < .001) was stronger than that between TCRP and CHM (R2 = 0.87, P < .001). When compared with the CHM, TCRP underestimated corneal power by a mean relative error of 0.59 diopter (D) and TK by 0.17 D. Linear regression analysis of ΔTCRP/ΔTK and the difference between preoperative and postoperative manifest refraction spherical equivalent at the corneal plane (ΔSEco) showed stronger correlation in ΔTK (R2 = 0.88) than that in ΔTCRP (R2 = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: The findings endorse TK as an accurate measure for corneal power after myopic SMILE.

Surface Ablation Versus CIRCLE for Myopic Enhancement After SMILE: A Matched Comparative Study.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of enhancement after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) using surface ablation versus the VisuMax CIRCLE option (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany), which converts the SMILE cap into a femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis flap. METHODS: The databases of the SMILE Eyes centers in Munich, Marburg, and Cologne, Germany, and Linz, Austria, were screened for eyes that had undergone enhancement using surface ablation with mitomycin C or CIRCLE. Eyes from both enhancement methods suitable for a retrospective matched analysis were identified based on pre-SMILE and pre-enhancement mean refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE), astigmatism, age, and corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity (CDVA/UDVA). Refractive and functional outcomes were compared after a follow-up of 3 months. RESULTS: After the application of the matching criteria on 2,803 SMILE procedures, 24 eyes (12 in each group) with a follow-up of 3 months or longer were available for analysis. Enhancement was performed after a mean 9.7 ± 7.2 (surface ablation) and 11.0 ± 4.4 (CIRCLE) months for a residual MRSE of -0.91 ± 0.55 (surface ablation) and -0.90 ± 0.61 (CIRCLE) diopters. At 3 months, residual MRSE showed comparable accuracy with -0.07 ± 0.19 (surface ablation) and 0.04 ± 0.22 (CIRCLE) diopters (P = .18). UDVA improvement was similar to a final value of 0.02 ± 0.10 (surface ablation) versus 0.03 ± 0.07 (CIRCLE) logMAR (P = .78). Only one eye in the surface ablation group and no eye in the CIRCLE group lost one line of CDVA. At 3 months, the safety (surface ablation: 1.00, CIRCLE: 1.06; P = .36) and efficacy (surface ablation: 0.95, CIRCLE: 1.03; P = .36) indices were equivalent. In terms of speed of visual recovery, at week 1 UDVA and CDVA were significantly better after CIRCLE than surface ablation (P = .008 and .002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this first study directly comparing surface ablation versus CIRCLE enhancement after SMILE, both methods yielded comparable results at 3 months. However, CIRCLE re-treated eyes showed a markedly increased speed of recovery concerning UDVA and CDVA compared to surface ablation. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(5):294-300.].

Flushing versus not flushing the interface during small-incision lenticule extraction.

PURPOSE: To assess the differences in outcomes between interface flushing with a balanced salt solution after refractive lenticule removal in simultaneous uneventful bilateral small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). SETTING: Six study centers in Germany. DESIGN: Prospective case series. METHODS: Patients with myopia or myopic astigmatism of similar magnitude in both eyes with a spherical equivalent less than or equal to 10.0 diopters (D), preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) of 0.80 decimal or better, and anisometropia less than or equal to 2.0 D were enrolled and followed for 3 months. One eye of each patient was treated with interface flushing after dry extraction of the lenticule. Flushing was performed with 1.0 cc balanced salt solution using a single-use 27-gauge cannula. The uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at 1 day, 1 week, and 3 months; the CDVA at 3 months; and postoperative differences at the slitlamp examination were recorded. Statistical analyses were performed with logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution values using paired t tests. The P value for significance was less than 0.05. RESULTS: The study analyzed 470 eyes. One day postoperatively, the mean UDVA was 0.81 in the non-flush group and 0.83 in the flush group (P = .110). At the last visit 3 months postoperatively, the mean UDVA was 1.04 and 1.05, respectively (P = .172). No significant differences in the rate of postoperative complications were found. CONCLUSION: Interface irrigation with 1.0 cc of balanced salt solution after the removal of the refractive lenticule has neither advantages nor disadvantages in terms of visual recovery, postoperative complications, or final visual acuity.

CIRCLE Enhancement After Myopic SMILE.

PURPOSE: To report the outcomes of enhancement after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) using the VisuMax CIRCLE option (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany), which converts the SMILE cap into a femtosecond LASIK flap for secondary excimer laser application. METHODS: Of 2,065 SMILE procedures, 22 eyes (1.1%) re-treated with CIRCLE with a follow-up of 3 months were included in the analysis. SMILE was performed in the usual manner. For re-treatment, the CIRCLE procedure was performed with pattern D flap creation on the VisuMax system and subsequent excimer laser ablation with a Zeiss MEL 90 laser (Carl Zeiss Meditec) with plano target in all cases. RESULTS: Spherical equivalent was -5.56 ± 2.22 diopters (D) before SMILE and -0.51 ± 1.08 D before CIRCLE. CIRCLE enhancement was performed after a mean of 10.0 ± 7.9 months, allowed for safe flap lifting in all eyes, and resulted in a final manifest refraction spherical equivalent of 0.18 ± 0.31 D at 3 months (P < .008). The number of eyes within 0.50 and 1.00 D from target refraction increased from 31.8% to 90.9% and from 77.3% to 100%, respectively. Mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) had already improved from 0.37 ± 0.16 to 0.08 ± 0.16 logMAR at 1 week (P < .0001), resulting in 0.03 ± 0.07 logMAR at 3 months (P < .0001). All eyes gained at least one line of UDVA. Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) remained unchanged at all time points (before vs after CIRCLE, P = .40). Two eyes (9.1 %) lost one line of CDVA; no eye lost two or more lines. The safety and efficacy indices were 1.03 and 0.97 at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: The CIRCLE procedure represents an effective re-treatment option after SMILE. Compared to surface ablation re-treatment after SMILE, CIRCLE seems to offer advantages in respect to speed of visual recovery, safety, and predictability, but at the price of flap creation. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(5):304-309.].

Enhancement After Myopic Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) Using Surface Ablation.

PURPOSE: To report the feasibility and outcomes of surface ablation after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). METHODS: In this retrospective evaluation of 1,963 SMILE procedures, 43 eyes (2.2%) were re-treated at three separate clinics. Of these, 40 eyes of 28 patients with a follow-up of at least 3 months were included in the analysis. During surface ablation, mitomycin C was applied for haze prevention. RESULTS: Spherical equivalent was -6.35 ± 1.31 diopters (D) before SMILE and -0.86 ± 0.43 D before surface ablation. Surface ablation was performed after a mean of 9.82 ± 5.27 months and resulted in a spherical equivalent of 0.03 ± 0.57 D at 3 months (P < .0001). The number of patients within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D of target refraction increased from 22.5% to 80% and from 72.5% to 92.5%, respectively. Mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) improved from 0.23 ± 0.20 to 0.08 ± 0.15 logMAR (P < .0001); 65% of patients gained at least one line. Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) remained unchanged with 0.01 ± 0.07 logMAR before versus -0.01 ± 0.05 logMAR after re-treatment (P = .99). Six eyes (15.0%) lost one line of CDVA, but final CDVA was 0.00 logMAR in four and 0.10 logMAR in two of these cases. The safety and efficacy indices were 1.06 and 0.90 at 3 months, respectively. Three of the four surface ablation profiles (Triple-A, tissue-saving algorithm, and topography-guided) resulted in equally good results, whereas enhancement with the aspherically optimized profile (ASA), used in two eyes, resulted in overcorrection (+1.38 and +1.75 D). CONCLUSIONS: Combined with the intraoperative application of mitomycin C, surface ablation seems to be a safe and effective method of secondary enhancement after SMILE. Due to the usually low residual myopia, the ASA profile is not recommended in these cases. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(8):513-518.].

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).

PURPOSE: To evaluate theoretical biomechanical advantages of human corneas treated with small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) compared with femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK (FS-LASIK) Patients and methods: In a prospective, comparative, non-randomized, consecutive case series patients with moderate to high myopia and/or astigmatism underwent corneal refractive surgery. Patients either received standard FS-LASIK or SMILE. Preoperatively and up to 3 months postoperatively data were analyzed including tomography with Pentacam HR, Goldmann tonometry, non-contact tonometry, and deformability of the cornea using an ultra-high-speed camera (Corvis ST). Data were analyzed and p < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant (t-test). RESULTS: Seventy-three patients (128 eyes) were treated. Forty-eight eyes of 29 patients underwent FS-LASIK and 80 eyes of 44 patients underwent SMILE. Preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) was -3.23 ± 1.64 D (FS-LASIK group) and -4.83 ± 1.63 D (SMILE group) (p < 0.0001). Almost all parameters obtained by Corvis ST between preoperative and postoperative measurements showed significant changes after refractive surgery. Significant changes were seen between both groups postoperatively. However, matched pair subgroup analysis (n = 69; 26 eyes FS-LASIK; 43 eyes SMILE) of eyes with initially equal pachymetry, intraocular pressure, SE, and difference of pre- to postoperative pachymetry (p>0.05), showed no significant changes in parameters measured with Corvis ST (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Corneal biomechanical parameters measured preoperatively with Corvis ST showed significant differences postoperatively in total and in both groups. In subgroup analysis with homogenous groups, FS-LASIK showed no significant changes in biomechanical data measured with Corvis ST compared with SMILE.

Corneal collagen crosslinking with riboflavin and ultraviolet A to treat induced keratectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis.

PURPOSE: To determine whether riboflavin and ultraviolet-A (UVA) corneal crosslinking can be used as an alternative therapy to prevent the progression of keratectasia. SETTING: Institute for Refractive and Ophthalmic Surgery, Zurich, Switzerland, and a private clinic, Athens, Greece. METHODS: Corneal crosslinking was performed in 10 patients with formerly undiagnosed forme fruste keratoconus or pellucid marginal corneal degeneration who had laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopic astigmatism and subsequently developed iatrogenic keratectasia. Surgery was performed in 1 eye per patient. RESULTS: Crosslinking induced by riboflavin and UVA arrested and/or partially reversed keratectasia over a postoperative follow-up of up to 25 months as demonstrated by preoperative and postoperative corneal topography and a reduction in maximum keratometric readings. CONCLUSION: Riboflavin-UVA corneal crosslinking increased the biomechanical stability of the cornea and may thus be a therapeutic means to arrest and partially reverse the progression of LASIK-induced iatrogenic keratectasia.