Jin Hyoung Park1, Hyung Jin Koo2. 1. From the Miso Eye Clinic (Park), Nunemiso Eye Center (Koo), the Research Institute for Biomacromolecules (Park), University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. Electronic address: drpark99@naver.com. 2. From the Miso Eye Clinic (Park), Nunemiso Eye Center (Koo), the Research Institute for Biomacromolecules (Park), University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the predictability and safety of immediate small-incision lenticule extraction, also known as SMILE, after suction loss during the procedure with those of uneventful small-incision lenticule extraction. SETTING: Nunemiso Eye Center, Seoul, South Korea. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Patients who had immediate small-incision lenticule extraction using reapplied suction (study group) or uneventful small-incision lenticule extraction (control group) for myopia or myopic astigmatism were included. All patients were followed for at least 12 months. Demographic as well as visual and refractive outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Twenty-three eyes were enrolled in the study group and 48 eyes in the control group. The overall cumulative incidence of suction loss was 0.2% (28 of 11 762 eyes). Twenty-two eyes (96%) in the study group had unchanged or improved decimal Snellen corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA). At 12 months, the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity, CDVA, and manifest refraction defocus equivalent in the study group and control group were 0.99 ± 0.17 (SD), 1.11 ± 0.14, 0.75 ± 0.50 diopters (D), and 1.25 ± 0.22 D, 1.26 ± 0.21 D, 0.35 ± 0.26 D, respectively (P = .000, P = .007, and P = .000, respectively). The correlation between the achieved and the attempted spherical equivalent refraction was slightly better in the control group (R2 = 0.972) than in the study group (R2 = 0.933). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate small-incision lenticule extraction using reapplied suction resulted in safe and clinically predictable long-term outcomes. However, predictability was lower for immediate than for uneventful small-incision lenticule extraction.
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the predictability and safety of immediate small-incision lenticule extraction, also known as SMILE, after suction loss during the procedure with those of uneventful small-incision lenticule extraction. SETTING: Nunemiso Eye Center, Seoul, South Korea. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS:Patients who had immediate small-incision lenticule extraction using reapplied suction (study group) or uneventful small-incision lenticule extraction (control group) for myopia or myopic astigmatism were included. All patients were followed for at least 12 months. Demographic as well as visual and refractive outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Twenty-three eyes were enrolled in the study group and 48 eyes in the control group. The overall cumulative incidence of suction loss was 0.2% (28 of 11 762 eyes). Twenty-two eyes (96%) in the study group had unchanged or improved decimal Snellen corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA). At 12 months, the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity, CDVA, and manifest refraction defocus equivalent in the study group and control group were 0.99 ± 0.17 (SD), 1.11 ± 0.14, 0.75 ± 0.50 diopters (D), and 1.25 ± 0.22 D, 1.26 ± 0.21 D, 0.35 ± 0.26 D, respectively (P = .000, P = .007, and P = .000, respectively). The correlation between the achieved and the attempted spherical equivalent refraction was slightly better in the control group (R2 = 0.972) than in the study group (R2 = 0.933). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate small-incision lenticule extraction using reapplied suction resulted in safe and clinically predictable long-term outcomes. However, predictability was lower for immediate than for uneventful small-incision lenticule extraction.