Tommy C Y Chan1, Alex L K Ng2, George P M Cheng3, Zheng Wang4, Cong Ye5, Victor C P Woo3, Clement C Y Tham1, Vishal Jhanji6. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Hong Kong Eye Hospital, Kowloon, Hong Kong Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong. 3. Hong Kong Laser Eye Center, Hong Kong, Hong Kong. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. 5. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, Hong Kong Eye Hospital, Kowloon, Hong Kong Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong Centre for Eye Research Australia, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: To compare astigmatic correction between femtosecond-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). METHODS: A total of 111 patients were included in this prospective study. Fifty-seven eyes were treated with LASIK and 54 eyes were treated with SMILE for myopia with low to moderate (-0.25 to -4.0 D) astigmatism. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity and manifest refraction were measured preoperatively and at 1 and 3 months postoperatively. Visual and refractive outcomes were reported. Changes in refractive astigmatism were evaluated using vector analysis. RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics were similar between both groups. The UDVA at 1 and 3 months was better in the LASIK group compared with the SMILE group (p<0.009). Postoperative cylinder was higher in the SMILE group (p<0.001). Fewer eyes attained the attempted cylindrical correction in the SMILE group (p<0.029). Vector analysis showed no significant difference in target-induced astigmatism (p=0.091) and angle of error (p>0.596) between the two groups. Surgically induced astigmatism was significantly lower in the SMILE group (p<0.023), while the difference vector (p<0.001) and absolute angle of error (p<0.016) were significantly higher in the SMILE group. No significant difference was found in these parameters between 1 and 3 months in both groups (p>0.122). CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that SMILE offered a less favourable astigmatic correction comparable to femtosecond-assisted LASIK in eyes with low to moderate myopic astigmatism. The alignment of treatment was more variable in SMILE, leading to a lower efficacy compared with LASIK by 3 months postoperatively. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
AIM: To compare astigmatic correction between femtosecond-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). METHODS: A total of 111 patients were included in this prospective study. Fifty-seven eyes were treated with LASIK and 54 eyes were treated with SMILE for myopia with low to moderate (-0.25 to -4.0 D) astigmatism. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity and manifest refraction were measured preoperatively and at 1 and 3 months postoperatively. Visual and refractive outcomes were reported. Changes in refractive astigmatism were evaluated using vector analysis. RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics were similar between both groups. The UDVA at 1 and 3 months was better in the LASIK group compared with the SMILE group (p<0.009). Postoperative cylinder was higher in the SMILE group (p<0.001). Fewer eyes attained the attempted cylindrical correction in the SMILE group (p<0.029). Vector analysis showed no significant difference in target-induced astigmatism (p=0.091) and angle of error (p>0.596) between the two groups. Surgically induced astigmatism was significantly lower in the SMILE group (p<0.023), while the difference vector (p<0.001) and absolute angle of error (p<0.016) were significantly higher in the SMILE group. No significant difference was found in these parameters between 1 and 3 months in both groups (p>0.122). CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that SMILE offered a less favourable astigmatic correction comparable to femtosecond-assisted LASIK in eyes with low to moderate myopic astigmatism. The alignment of treatment was more variable in SMILE, leading to a lower efficacy compared with LASIK by 3 months postoperatively. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Authors: Alex L K Ng; Tommy C Y Chan; George P M Cheng; Vishal Jhanji; Cong Ye; Victor C P Woo; Jimmy S M Lai Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 1.909
Authors: Tommy C Y Chan; Alex Lk Ng; George P M Cheng; Zheng Wang; Victor C P Woo; Vishal Jhanji Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 4.379