2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Three-Year Stability of Posterior Corneal Elevation After Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) for Moderate and High Myopia

      , , , ,
      Journal of Refractive Surgery
      SLACK, Inc.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Small incision corneal refractive surgery using the small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) procedure for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism: results of a 6 month prospective study.

          This 6 month prospective multi-centre study evaluated the feasibility of performing myopic femtosecond lenticule extraction (FLEx) through a small incision using the small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) procedure. Prospective, non-randomised clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS; Ninety-one eyes of 48 patients with myopia with and without astigmatism completed the final 6 month follow-up. The patients' mean age was 35.3 years. Their preoperative mean spherical equivalent (SE) was −4.75±1.56 D. A refractive lenticule of intrastromal corneal tissue was cut utilising a prototype of the Carl Zeiss Meditec AG VisuMax femtosecond laser system. Simultaneously two opposite small ‘pocket’ incisions were created by the laser system. Thereafter, the lenticule was manually dissected with a spatula and removed through one of incisions using modified McPherson forceps. Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) and best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) after 6 months, objective and manifest refraction as well as slit-lamp examination, side effects and a questionnaire. Six months postoperatively the mean SE was −0.01 D±0.49 D. Most treated eyes (95.6%) were within ±1.0 D, and 80.2% were within ±0.5 D of intended correction. Of the eyes treated, 83.5% had an UCVA of 1.0 (20/20) or better, 53% remained unchanged, 32.3% gained one line, 3.3% gained two lines of BSCVA, 8.8% lost one line and 1.1% lost ≥2 lines of BSCVA. When answering a standardised questionnaire, 93.3% of patients were satisfied with the results obtained and would undergo the procedure again. SMILE is a promising new flapless minimally invasive refractive procedure to correct myopia.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Small-incision lenticule extraction.

            This review looks at the benefits, limitations, complications, and future applications of the small-incision lenticule extraction procedure. Using the search terms small incision lenticule extraction and femtosecond lenticule extraction, we obtained data from 56 articles (omitting German and Chinese articles) from the PubMed database. Small-incision lenticule extraction has shown efficacy, predictability, and safety that are proportionate to those of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), with the additional benefit that it eliminates flap creation and the attendant risks. The potential advantages of the procedure related to improved biomechanical stability, postoperative inflammation, and dry-eye symptoms have not been fully established. Small-incision lenticule extraction-treated eyes have shown a reduced degree of postoperative corneal denervation and higher-order aberrations and an accelerated rate of corneal nerve convalescence relative to LASIK. Future possibilities related to long-term cryogenic storage of extracted lenticules with eventual reimplantation or donation have been investigated with encouraging preliminary results.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Repeatability and reproducibility of central corneal thickness measurement with Pentacam, Orbscan, and ultrasound.

              The purpose of this study was to compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements obtained with a novel rotating Scheimpflug camera (Pentacam; Oculus) with scanning slit topography (Orbscan; Bausch & Lomb), and with ultrasound pachymetry (SP-2000; Tomey). CCT in 30 healthy eyes was measured twice with each modality by 2 independent observers in random order. The results from scanning slit topography are given both with and without multiplication with the "acoustic correction factor" of 0.92. In addition, the displayed images from the rotating Scheimpflug camera and scanning slit topography were used to calculate the signal difference-to-noise ratios (SD/N) between cornea and background signal. The mean CCT values as determined with the different modalities (+/-standard deviation) were: 542+/-29 microm, 576+/-37 microm, 530+/-34 microm, and 552+/-32 microm for rotating Scheimpflug imaging, for uncorrected and for corrected scanning slit pachymetry, and for ultrasound, respectively. The differences between modalities (+/-95% limits of agreement) were -9.8+/-31 microm between rotating Scheimpflug and ultrasound, 24+/-31.2 microm between scanning slit and ultrasound, and 33+/-27 microm between scanning slit and rotating Scheimpflug imaging. The limits of agreement for within and between observer effects were within 4.2% of the absolute CCT values for scanning slit and ultrasound and within 2.2% for the rotating Scheimpflug imaging. The rotating Scheimpflug camera showed similar SD/N ratios but steeper edges of the corneal surfaces in the intensity profile plots. In the assessment of normal corneas, the Pentacam measured CCT values closer to ultrasound pachymetry and with less variability compared with Orbscan. The (interobserver) reproducibility with the Pentacam was highest of all 3 modalities.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Refractive Surgery
                J Refract Surg
                SLACK, Inc.
                1081-597X
                February 01 2017
                February 01 2017
                : 33
                : 2
                : 84-88
                Article
                10.3928/1081597X-20161117-01
                28192586
                4938639a-3cc6-4156-9fff-acd938a96f7b
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article