RESUMO
Purpose: To compare the visual outcomes following topography?guided laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) treatment using manifest refraction versus a new topography analysis software. Methods: A prospective, randomized, observer?masked contralateral study was conducted in the refractive services of a tertiary eye care hospital in South India. Analysis of visual outcomes, corneal higher?order aberrations, and contrast sensitivity were performed at 3 months postoperative visit following uneventful topography?guided LASIK using the Wavelight EX500. One eye was treated with the Contoura platform using manifest refraction (Contoura), while the contralateral eye was treated using an ablation profile planned by the Phorcides Analytic Engine (Phorcides). Results: Sixty eyes of 30 patients were included in the study. At 3 months postoperative visit, the uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) in the Contoura and Phorcides groups was logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) 0.04 ± 0.07 and logMAR 0.06 ± 0.1, respectively (P = 0.483). Postoperative manifest refractive spherical error (MRSE) was 0.12 ± 0.22 and ? 0.06 ± 0.20 D in the Contoura and Phorcides groups, respectively (P = 0.338). Although higher number of eyes demonstrated a gain in one or more lines of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) in the Contoura group (16.6% vs. 6.6%), the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.361). Vector analysis (Alpins criteria) for postoperative cylinder, contrast sensitivity measurement, and corneal higher?order aberration profile showed no significant difference between the two groups at 3 months postoperative visit (P = 0.213, 0.514, and 0.332, respectively). Conclusion: Quantitative and qualitative visual outcomes with the Phorcides Analytic Software were similar to the Contoura treatment using manifest refraction.
RESUMO
Purpose: To compare the visual outcomes in patients undergoing small?incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for correction of myopic astigmatism (??1.50 D) with or without manual cyclotorsion compensation. Methods: A prospective, double?blinded, randomized, contralateral study was conducted in the refractive services of a tertiary eye care center. Eligible patients with bilateral high myopic astigmatism (?1.5 D) and intraoperative cyclotorsion (?5°) undergoing SMILE between June 2018 and May 2019 were included. Cyclotorsion compensation was performed using triple centration method before femtosecond laser delivery. Uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and CDVA, respectively) measurement, manifest refraction, slit?lamp biomicroscopy, and corneal tomography were performed preoperatively and at 1 and 3 months’ postoperative visit. Astigmatic outcomes were analyzed using Alpins criteria. Results: A total of 30 patients (60 eyes) were included in this study. The patients underwent bilateral SMILE surgery, with manual cyclotorsion compensation in one eye (CC group, n = 30 eyes) and no cyclotorsion compensation in the other eye (NCC group, n = 30 eyes). Preoperative astigmatism and intraoperative cyclotorsion were ?2.0 D and 7.03° ± 1.06° (CC) and ?1.75 D and 7.24° ± 0.98° (NCC) (P = 0.472 and 0.240, respectively). No significant differences were noted in mean refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE), UDVA, CDVA, and refractive error between the two groups at 3 months’ postoperative visit. Astigmatic outcomes measured using Alpins criteria demonstrated no significant difference between the two cohorts. Conclusion: The cyclotorsion compensation technique provided no additional advantage in terms of astigmatic outcomes or postoperative visual quality, in eyes with high preoperative astigmatism and intraoperative cyclotorsion.
RESUMO
Purpose: To compare visual outcomes of early enhancement following small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) versus laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). Methods: Retrospective analysis of eyes (patients operated in the setting of a tertiary eye care hospital between 2014 and 2020) requiring early enhancement (within one year of primary surgery) was conducted. Stability of refractive error, corneal tomography, and anterior segment Optical Coherence Tomography (AS-OCT) for epithelial thickness was performed. The correction post regression was done using photorefractive keratectomy and flap lift in eyes, wherein the primary procedure was SMILE and LASIK, respectively. Pre- and post enhancement corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity (CDVA and UDVA), mean refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE), and cylinder were analyzed. IBM SPSS statistical software. Results: In total, 6350 and 8176 eyes post SMILE and LASIK, respectively, were analyzed. Of these, 32 eyes of 26 patients (0.5%) post SMILE and 36 eyes of 32 patients (0.44%) post-LASIK required enhancement. Post enhancement (flap lift in LASIK, and PRK in SMILE group) UDVA was logMAR 0.02 ± 0.05 and 0.09 ± 0.16 (P = 0.009), respectively. There was no significant difference between the refractive sphere (P = 0.33) and MRSE (P = 0.09). In total, 62.5% of the eyes in the SMILE group and 80.5% in the LASIK group had a UDVA of 20/20 or better (P = 0.04). Conclusion: PRK post SMILE demonstrated comparable results to flap lift post LASIK and is a safe and effective approach for early enhancement post SMILE.