RESUMEN
PURPOSE: We investigate whether small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) is associated with less ectasia than laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and whether concomitant collagen cross-linking (CXL) is protective in SMILE Xtra and LASIK Xtra. METHODS: Using an established LASIK rabbit ectasia model, we performed -5 diopter (D) LASIK on six eyes and -5 D SMILE on six eyes; five eyes had -5 D LASIK Xtra, five eyes -5 D SMILE Xtra. Anterior segment optical coherence tomography and corneal topography were performed preoperatively and 2, 4, and 6 weeks postoperatively. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) values of postoperative keratometry (K), maximum posterior elevation (MPE) and minimum corneal thickness (CT) were compared to preoperatively and among the surgical groups (paired t-test, analysis of variance). RESULTS: Mean (SD) K values decreased significantly following SMILE, SMILE Xtra, LASIK, and LASIK Xtra. The MPE increased significantly (P < 0.05) following LASIK, SMILE, and SMILE Xtra, but not following LASIK Xtra (P = 0.12). The MPE was less following SMILE than LASIK, but not statistically significant (week 2, 17.73 [5.77] vs. 22.75 [5.05] µm; P = 0.13); post-LASIK Xtra MPE was less than that following LASIK (week 2. 13.39 [3.05] vs. 22.75 [5.05] µm; P < 0.001). CT decreased significantly in all surgical groups; no differences were detected among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: SMILE may have less potential than LASIK to induce ectasia. LASIK Xtra and SMILE Xtra showed the smallest increase in MPE. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Concomitant CXL may be protective following keratorefractive surgery and may reduce further the risk of ectasia.
RESUMEN
With any refractive correction, including Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE), there may be a residual refractive error that requires a retreatment. Here, we investigated the tissue responses following various retreatment procedures in a rabbit model of SMILE. All rabbits underwent a -6.00D correction with SMILE. Two weeks later, they underwent -1.00D enhancement by: (i) VisuMax Circle, followed by excimer ablation (S+C); (ii) secondary SMILE anterior to the primary procedure (S+SE); or (iii) surface ablation (S+P), and were examined for 28 days. S+P induced corneal edema and haze, and more CD11b- (23±6 cells) and TUNEL-positive (36±4 cells) cells in the central stromal superficial layers early post-operatively (p<0.001 compared to other procedures). The corneas appeared normal on day 28 after S+P, but had a lower number of keratocytes near the laser ablated plane compared to other procedures. S+SE and S+C did not induce corneal haze and resulted similar level of fibronectin. However, S+C resulted in more inflammatory (10±2 cells; p = 0.001) and apoptotic cells (25±2 cells; p<0.001) compared to S+SE (7±1 inflammatory cells and 21±3 apoptotic cells) early post-operatively. In conclusion, each SMILE retreatment method resulted in unique tissue responses. S+SE offers advantages, such as minimal inflammation and cell death, as well as maintaining a 'flap-less' surgery, over other procedures. However, depending on the degree of enhancement, the lenticule may become too thin to be extracted and the procedure becomes more difficult to perform than S+C and S+P. S+P can maintain corneal integrity by avoiding flap creation and is technically more simple to perform than the others, but the surgery needs to be supplemented with mitomycin-C in order to reduce inflammation and modulate better wound healing.