RESUMO
Purpose: To determine the safety and efficacy of low?energy settings in small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for correcting myopia and myopic astigmatism. Methods: We included patients aged ?18 years with the myopia of ?0.5 to ?10 D and myopic astigmatism of ?0.5 to ?5 Dcyl in this retrospective case series performed at a private eye hospital in South India. All patients had preoperative best?corrected visual acuity of LogMar 0.0 ± 0, with stable refraction for 1 year and normal corneal topography. Ocular surface disease and other pathology cases were excluded. The repetition rate of the laser was 500 kHz, and the pulse energy was 110 nJ. The lenticule diameter was set at 6.5 mm, cap diameter was 7.20 mm, and intended cap thickness was 110–130 ?. The spot distance was 4.5 ?m. All patients were evaluated immediately postoperation and on postoperative days 1, 8, and 30. Results: Overall, 541 eyes were included. The mean patient age was 25.03 ± 4.1 years. The mean spherical error was ?3.76 ± 1.84 Ds. The mean cylinder was ?1.24 ± 0.91. The mean spherical equivalent of refraction was ?4.22 ±1.94 D. The logMAR on postoperative day 1 was 0.0 ± 0. The mean spherical equivalent at 1 month was 0.28 ± 1.06 D. There was no loss of Snellen’s lines after the procedure. The mean spherical equivalent of refraction to the target was 95% within ± 0.50 D. The postoperative astigmatism was within 0.5 Dycl. No intraoperative complications of SMILE including retained lenticule fragments, tears of incision, or improper dissection occurred. Conclusion: Low?energy settings in SMILE are safe and effective in correcting myopia and myopic astigmatism including high cylinders (>3 Dcyl).
RESUMO
Purpose: To compare four different types of intra ocular lenses (IOLs), namely, AT LISA, Eyecryl SERT trifocal, Eyhance, Eyecryl SERT extended depth of focus (EDOF) with respect to their clinical outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective comparative study in which patients who underwent surgery and one of the four types of IOL were implanted. Postoperative evaluation was recorded at one month, postoperatively. The monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (6 m), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) (60 cm), distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (CIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) (40 cm), and corrected near visual acuity (CNVA) were assessed postoperatively on post operative day 30, for all four IOL groups. Defocus curve and contrast sensitivity were also compared. Results: With regards to UDVA and CDVA, P value was not statistically significant. (P = 0.534 and 0.421, respectively). EDOF group of IOLs had statistically significant better UIVA and CIVA than trifocal IOL group. (P < 0.001, 0.012, <0.001) and EDOF group had statistically significant worse P value pertaining to UNVA and CNVA (P < 0.001, 0.070, <0.001, 0.190). Pertaining to contrast sensitivity, EDOF group had better contrast sensitivity than Trifocal IOL group (P < 0.001). Conclusion: All four IOLs compared in this study had good comparable distant visual acuity. Near visual acuity was better with AT LISA and Eyecryl SERT trifocal IOL while intermediate vision was better with Eyhance and Eyecryl SERT EDOF IOL. Contrast sensitivity was better in EDOF IOLs than in both trifocal IOLs
RESUMO
Purpose: To evaluate the visual outcomes of patients who underwent small?incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for the treatment of myopic astigmatism with high cylinders (>2.5 diopters, D). Methods: Forty?two eyes of myopic astigmatism with a spherical error of magnitude between ? 0.5 and ? 6.0 Ds, cylindrical error of ? 2.5 to ? 4.5 Dcyl were included in the retrospective study. All patients were tested preoperatively and on days 1, 10, and 30 for uncorrected distance visual acuity, manifest refraction, and corrected distance visual acuity. Additional preoperative assessments were done including measurement of corneal thickness, corneal topography, and examination for ocular surface disease. All procedures were performed by a single experienced surgeon. VisuMax laser system (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) was utilized for all the corrective refractive procedures. Results: Forty?two eyes were included. The logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) was 1 ± 0.25 preoperatively and 0.00 ± 0.00 on postoperative day 30. There was no loss of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) lines. Conclusion: SMILE is a successful procedure in the treatment of both myopic spherical and cylindrical refractive errors including high cylindrical errors >?3 to ? 4.5 Dcyl.