Advertisement

Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) lenticule thickness readout compared to change in axial length measurements with the IOLMaster

  • Eugene TayEmail author
  • Ram Bajpai
Refractive Surgery

Abstract

Purpose

To compare theoretical values from the small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) lenticule thickness readout with change in axial length measurements taken with the IOLMaster.

Methods

We prospectively studied 214 eyes from 107 patients undergoing bilateral SMILE surgery for myopia or myopic astigmatism between December 2014 and May 2017 at an ophthalmological practice in Singapore. All eyes were examined pre-operatively and 1 and 3 months post-operatively with the IOLMaster following SMILE surgery. Achieved lenticule thickness was taken as the change in axial length after surgery. A linear mixed-effects model was used to examine changes in axial length, spherical equivalent and acuity over time. The relationships between change in axial length and theoretical lenticule thickness and spherical equivalent were examined with multiple linear regression analyses, and model prediction was assessed with adjusted R2 statistics.

Results

Mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) spherical equivalent pre-operatively was − 5.25 (95% CI − 5.38 to − 5.12) diopters (D), at 1 month was 0.04 (95% CI − 0.09 to 0.17) D (p < 0.001), and at 3 months was − 0.02 (95% CI − 0.15 to 0.11) D (p < 0.001). Mean (95% CI) pre-operative axial length was 27,726 (95% CI 25,595 to 25,857) μm. Post-operative axial length at 1 month was significantly shorter at 25,595 (95% CI 25,464 to 25,726) μm (p < 0.001) with no change thereafter (p = 0.647). Pre-operative mean ± standard deviation (SD) refractive target was 0.24 (± 0.3) D, and mean difference between target and post-operative spherical equivalent at 1 month was 0.20 D (95% CI 0.16 to 0.25 D, p < 0.001). Multiple regression analysis showed that change in axial length at 1 month was, on average, 5% lower than theoretical lenticule thickness, indicating an average difference of 5.4 μm (95% CI 5.2 to 5.6 μm). Preoperative spherical equivalent predicted negative association with change in axial length at 1 month (β = − 14.8, 95% CI − 18.2 to − 11.3, adjusted R2 = 0.457, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Calculated lenticule thickness values were less than expected, and post-operative refractive outcomes at 1 month showed a slight under-correction. Further research in this area is needed to validate these findings.

Keywords

SMILE Lenticule Thickness Refractive IOLMaster 

Notes

Funding information

No funding was received.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the local institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Human and animal rights and informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

417_2019_4529_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (219 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 218 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Stulting RD, Lahners WJ, Carr JD (2000) Advances in refractive surgery: 1975 to present. Cornea 19:741–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    SMILE—laser vision correction. Carl Zeiss Meditec AG website. https://www.zeiss.com/meditec/int/c/smile/laser-vision-correction.html. Accessed December 10, 2018.
  3. 3.
    Shah R, Shah S, Sengupta S (2011) Results of small incision lenticule extraction: all-in-one femtosecond laser refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:127–137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.07.033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sekundo W, Kunert KS, Blum M (2011) 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. Br J Ophthalmol 95:335–339.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2009.174284 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu M, Chen Y, Wang D et al (2016) Clinical outcomes after SMILE and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK for myopia and myopic astigmatism: a prospective randomized comparative study. Cornea 35:210–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang Y, Shen Q, Jia Y, Zhou D, Zhou J (2016) Clinical outcomes of SMILE and FS-LASIK used to treat myopia: a meta-analysis. J Refract Surg 32:256–265.  https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20151111-06 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mohamed-Noriega K, Riau AK, Lwin NC, Chaurasia SS, Tan DT, Mehta JS (2014) Early corneal nerve damage and recovery following small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 55:1823–1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu D, Wang Y, Zhang L, Wei SS, Tang X (2014) Corneal biomechanical effects: Small incision lenticule extraction versus femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:954–962.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.07.056 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Randleman JB (2013) Mathematical model to compare the relative tensile strength of the cornea after PRK, Lasik and small incision lenticule extraction. J Refract Surg 29:454–460.  https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20130617-03 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sinha Roy A, Dupps WJ Jr, Roberts CJ (2014) Comparison of biomechanical effects of small incision lenticule extraction and laser in situ keratomileusis: finite element analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:971–980.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.08.065 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seven I, Vahdati A, Pedersen IB et al (2017) Contralateral eye comparison of SMILE and flap-based corneal refractive surgery: computational analysis of biomechanical impact. J Refract Surg 33:444–453.  https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20170504-01 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Randleman JB, Russell B, Ward MA, Thompson KP, Stulting RD (2003) Risk factors and prognosis for corneal ectasia after LASIK. Ophthalmology 110:267–275.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01727-X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady DG, Newman TB (2013) Designing clinical research. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Armstrong RA (2013) Statistical guidelines for the analysis of data obtained from one or both eyes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 33:7–14.  https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim WS, Jo JM (2001) Corneal hydration affects ablation during laser in situ keratomileusis surgery. Cornea 20:394–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ju WK, Lee JH, Chung TY, Chung ES (2011) Reproducibility of LASIK flap thickness using the Zeiss femtosecond laser measured postoperatively by optical coherence tomography. J Refract Surg 27:106–110.  https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20100428-04 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lim DH, Keum JE, Ju WK, Lee JH, Chung TY, Chung ES (2013) Prospective contralateral eye study to compare 80- and 120-μm flap LASIK using the VisuMax femtosecond laser. J Refract Surg 29:462–468.  https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20130617-04 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Gobbe M, Johnson N (2010) Accuracy and reproducibility of artemis central flap thickness and visual outcomes of LASIK with the Carl Zeiss Meditec VisuMax femtosecond laser and MEL 80 excimer laser platforms. J Refract Surg 26:107–119.  https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20100121-06 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Gobbe M (2013) Accuracy and reproducibility of cap thickness in small incision lenticule extraction. J Refract Surg 29:810–805.  https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20131023-02 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tay E, Li X, Chan C, Tan DT, Mehta JS (2012) Refractive lenticule extraction flap and stromal bed morphology assessment with anterior segment optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg 38:1544–1551.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.05.030 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tay E, Li X, Gimbel HV, Kaye G (2013) Assessment of axial length before and after myopic LASIK with the IOLMaster. J Refract Surg 29:838–841.  https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20130924-01 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Gobbe M (2010) Corneal ablation depth readout of the MEL 80 excimer laser compared to Artemis three-dimensional very high-frequency digital ultrasound stromal measurements. J Refract Surg 26:949–959.  https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20100114-02 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Gobbe M (2014) Lenticule thickness readout for small incision lenticule extraction compared to Artemis three-dimensional very high-frequency digital ultrasound stromal measurements. J Refract Surg 30:304–309.  https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20140416-01 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Luft N, Priglinger SG, Ring MH et al (2017) Stromal remodeling and lenticule thickness accuracy in small-incision lenticule extraction: one-year results. J Cataract Refract Surg 43:812–818.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.03.038 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhou J, Zhang Y, Li M, Sun L, Zhou X (2018) Predictability of the achieved lenticule thickness in small incision lenticule extraction for myopia correction. Eye Contact Lens 44(Suppl 2):S410–S413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kielhorn I, Rajan MS, Tesha PM, Subryan VR, Bell JA (2003) Clinical assessment of the Zeiss IOLMaster. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:518–522.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-3350(02)01819-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Findl O, Drexler W, Menapace R, Hitzenberger CK, Fercher AF (1998) High precision biometry of pseudophakic eyes using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 24:1087–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hussin HM, Spry PG, Majid MA, Gouws P (2006) Reliability and validity of the partial coherence interferometry for measurement of ocular axial length in children. Eye 20:1021–1024.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6702069 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bailey MD, Twa MD, Mitchell GL, Dhaliwal DK, Jones LA, McMahon TT (2005) Repeatability of autorefraction and axial length measurements after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:1025–1034.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.12.040 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vestergaard AH, Grauslund J, Ivarsen AR, Hjortdal JO (2014) Central corneal sublayer pachymetry and biomechanical properties after refractive femtosecond lenticule extraction. J Refract Surg 30:102–108.  https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20140120-05 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Luft N, Ring MH, Dirisamer M, Mursch-Edlmayr AS, Kreutzer TC, Pretzl J, Bolz M, Priglinger SG (2016) Corneal epithelial remodeling induced by small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 57:OCT176–OCT183.  https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.15-18879 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mukaka MM (2012) Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J 24:69–71PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vestergaard A, Ivarsen AR, Asp S, Hjortdal JØ (2012) Small-incision lenticule extraction for moderate to high myopia: predictability, safety, and patient satisfaction. J Cataract Refract Surg 38:2003–2010.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.07.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vestergaard A, Ivarsen A, Asp S, Hjortdal JØ (2013) Femtosecond (FS) laser vision correction procedure for moderate to high myopia: a prospective study of ReLEx(®) flex and comparison with a retrospective study of FS-laser in situ keratomileusis. Acta Ophthalmol 91:355–362.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.02406.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shah R, Shah S (2011) Effect of scanning patterns on the results of femtosecond laser lenticule extraction refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:1636–1647.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.03.056 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Donate D, Thaëron R (2016) Lower energy levels improve visual recovery in small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). J Refract Surg 32:636–642.  https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20160602-01 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shetty R, Shroff R, Kaweri L, Jayadev C, Kummelil MK, Sinha Roy A (2016) Intra-operative cap repositioning in small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for enhanced visual recovery. Curr Eye Res 41:1532–1538.  https://doi.org/10.3109/02713683.2016.1168848 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Agca A, Ozgurhan EB, Yildirim Y, Cankaya KI, Guleryuz NB, Alkin Z, Ozkaya A, Demirok A, Yilmaz OF (2014) Corneal backscatter analysis by in vivo confocal microscopy: fellow eye comparison of small incision lenticule extraction and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK. J Ophthalmol 2014:265012.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/265012 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Uçakhan OO, Ozkan M, Kanpolat A (2006) Corneal thickness measurements in normal and keratoconic eyes: Pentacam comprehensive eye scanner versus noncontact specular microscopy and ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:970–977.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.02.037 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lee JH, Kim JH, Kim SW (2018) Repeatability of central corneal thickness measurement using rotating Scheimpflug camera in dry and normal eyes. Eye Contact Lens 44(Suppl 2):S29–S32.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000373 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rozema JJ, Wouters K, Mathysen DG, Tassignon MJ (2014) Overview of the repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement of the biometry values provided by various ophthalmic devices. Am J Ophthalmol 158:1111–1120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2014.08.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Reinstein DZ, Yap TE, Archer TJ, Gobbe M, Silverman RH (2015) Comparison of corneal epithelial thickness measurement between Fourier-domain OCT and very high-frequency digital ultrasound. J Refract Surg 31:438–445.  https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20150623-01 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ursea R, Feng M, Urs R, RoyChoudhury A, Silverman RH (2013) Comparison of Artemis 2 ultrasound and Visante optical coherence tomography corneal thickness profiles. J Refract Surg 29:36–41.  https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20121126-01 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Singapore Eye Research InstituteThe Academia, 20 College RoadSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Centre for Population Health Sciences, Lee Kong Chian School of MedicineNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.School of Primary, Community and Social CareKeele UniversityStaffordshireUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations