Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Purpose To compare the thickness and stromal optical density (OD) evolution of the flap and cap after femtosecond (FS-LASIK; Visumax) and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), respectively, for myopia correction.
Methods A prospective study comprising 78 eyes (n=39 per group) was performed. Anterior segment optical coherence tomography (MS39) images were collected at each postoperative visit (1 day, 1 week and 1 and 3 months) and flap/cap thicknesses were measured. Using ImageJ software, three regions were defined to measure OD (in grayscale units: flap/cap stroma, residual stromal bed (RSB) and all stroma (including flap/cap-stroma, surgical interface and RSB).
Results Mean central thickness significantly increased during the 3-month follow-up in both LASIK (5.43±4.23 μm; p=0.0118) and SMILE (2.76±5.61 μm; p=0.0118), with differences between both techniques statistically significant (p=0.020). All OD values showed a statistically significant reduction during SMILE follow-up: cap 48.96±5.55 versus 44.95±5.41 (p=0.19×10−6), RSB 50.26±7.06 versus 45.42±7.53 (p=0.00005), total stroma 50.34±6.49 versus 45.46±6.96 (p=0.5×10−5) at 1 day and 3 months, respectively, whereas no statistically significant changes were found during LASIK follow-up. No significant differences were observed in OD values between both techniques at any time point, although SMILE showed a tendency for higher OD values than LASIK within the first postoperative month. Visumax presented a tendency for thicker caps than target (11.48±7.85 μm), but not for flaps (2.73±8.93 μm) (p=0.00003).
Conclusions Both LASIK flaps and SMILE caps show a significant postoperative rethickening. SMILE corneas present higher optical densities than LASIK corneas in the early postoperative period, with a significant decrease thereafter and up to 3 months. These findings correlate with the delayed visual recovery observed after SMILE.
- Cornea
- Treatment Lasers
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests JLAdB is part of the medical advisory board of CSO. The rest of the authors, their families, their employers and their business associates have no financial or proprietary interest in any product or company associated with any device, instrument or drug mentioned in this article. The rest of the authors have not received any payment as consultants, reviewers or evaluators of any of the devices, instruments or drugs mentioned in this article. The study has been carried out in the framework of the Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Salud (RETICS), reference number RD12/0034/0007 and RD16/0008/0012.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article.
Request Permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information:
Linked Articles
- At a glance