Surface Ablation Versus CIRCLE for Myopic Enhancement After SMILE: A Matched Comparative Study.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of enhancement after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) using surface ablation versus the VisuMax CIRCLE option (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany), which converts the SMILE cap into a femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis flap. METHODS: The databases of the SMILE Eyes centers in Munich, Marburg, and Cologne, Germany, and Linz, Austria, were screened for eyes that had undergone enhancement using surface ablation with mitomycin C or CIRCLE. Eyes from both enhancement methods suitable for a retrospective matched analysis were identified based on pre-SMILE and pre-enhancement mean refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE), astigmatism, age, and corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity (CDVA/UDVA). Refractive and functional outcomes were compared after a follow-up of 3 months. RESULTS: After the application of the matching criteria on 2,803 SMILE procedures, 24 eyes (12 in each group) with a follow-up of 3 months or longer were available for analysis. Enhancement was performed after a mean 9.7 ± 7.2 (surface ablation) and 11.0 ± 4.4 (CIRCLE) months for a residual MRSE of -0.91 ± 0.55 (surface ablation) and -0.90 ± 0.61 (CIRCLE) diopters. At 3 months, residual MRSE showed comparable accuracy with -0.07 ± 0.19 (surface ablation) and 0.04 ± 0.22 (CIRCLE) diopters (P = .18). UDVA improvement was similar to a final value of 0.02 ± 0.10 (surface ablation) versus 0.03 ± 0.07 (CIRCLE) logMAR (P = .78). Only one eye in the surface ablation group and no eye in the CIRCLE group lost one line of CDVA. At 3 months, the safety (surface ablation: 1.00, CIRCLE: 1.06; P = .36) and efficacy (surface ablation: 0.95, CIRCLE: 1.03; P = .36) indices were equivalent. In terms of speed of visual recovery, at week 1 UDVA and CDVA were significantly better after CIRCLE than surface ablation (P = .008 and .002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this first study directly comparing surface ablation versus CIRCLE enhancement after SMILE, both methods yielded comparable results at 3 months. However, CIRCLE re-treated eyes showed a markedly increased speed of recovery concerning UDVA and CDVA compared to surface ablation. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(5):294-300.].

Flushing versus not flushing the interface during small-incision lenticule extraction.

PURPOSE: To assess the differences in outcomes between interface flushing with a balanced salt solution after refractive lenticule removal in simultaneous uneventful bilateral small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). SETTING: Six study centers in Germany. DESIGN: Prospective case series. METHODS: Patients with myopia or myopic astigmatism of similar magnitude in both eyes with a spherical equivalent less than or equal to 10.0 diopters (D), preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) of 0.80 decimal or better, and anisometropia less than or equal to 2.0 D were enrolled and followed for 3 months. One eye of each patient was treated with interface flushing after dry extraction of the lenticule. Flushing was performed with 1.0 cc balanced salt solution using a single-use 27-gauge cannula. The uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at 1 day, 1 week, and 3 months; the CDVA at 3 months; and postoperative differences at the slitlamp examination were recorded. Statistical analyses were performed with logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution values using paired t tests. The P value for significance was less than 0.05. RESULTS: The study analyzed 470 eyes. One day postoperatively, the mean UDVA was 0.81 in the non-flush group and 0.83 in the flush group (P = .110). At the last visit 3 months postoperatively, the mean UDVA was 1.04 and 1.05, respectively (P = .172). No significant differences in the rate of postoperative complications were found. CONCLUSION: Interface irrigation with 1.0 cc of balanced salt solution after the removal of the refractive lenticule has neither advantages nor disadvantages in terms of visual recovery, postoperative complications, or final visual acuity.

CIRCLE Enhancement After Myopic SMILE.

PURPOSE: To report the outcomes of enhancement after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) using the VisuMax CIRCLE option (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany), which converts the SMILE cap into a femtosecond LASIK flap for secondary excimer laser application. METHODS: Of 2,065 SMILE procedures, 22 eyes (1.1%) re-treated with CIRCLE with a follow-up of 3 months were included in the analysis. SMILE was performed in the usual manner. For re-treatment, the CIRCLE procedure was performed with pattern D flap creation on the VisuMax system and subsequent excimer laser ablation with a Zeiss MEL 90 laser (Carl Zeiss Meditec) with plano target in all cases. RESULTS: Spherical equivalent was -5.56 ± 2.22 diopters (D) before SMILE and -0.51 ± 1.08 D before CIRCLE. CIRCLE enhancement was performed after a mean of 10.0 ± 7.9 months, allowed for safe flap lifting in all eyes, and resulted in a final manifest refraction spherical equivalent of 0.18 ± 0.31 D at 3 months (P < .008). The number of eyes within 0.50 and 1.00 D from target refraction increased from 31.8% to 90.9% and from 77.3% to 100%, respectively. Mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) had already improved from 0.37 ± 0.16 to 0.08 ± 0.16 logMAR at 1 week (P < .0001), resulting in 0.03 ± 0.07 logMAR at 3 months (P < .0001). All eyes gained at least one line of UDVA. Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) remained unchanged at all time points (before vs after CIRCLE, P = .40). Two eyes (9.1 %) lost one line of CDVA; no eye lost two or more lines. The safety and efficacy indices were 1.03 and 0.97 at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: The CIRCLE procedure represents an effective re-treatment option after SMILE. Compared to surface ablation re-treatment after SMILE, CIRCLE seems to offer advantages in respect to speed of visual recovery, safety, and predictability, but at the price of flap creation. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(5):304-309.].

Refractive outcomes of an advanced aspherically optimized profile for myopia corrections by LASIK: a retrospective comparison with the standard aspherically optimized profile.

PURPOSE: A retrospective comparison of refractive outcomes of a new, aspherically optimized profile with an enhanced energy correction feature (Triple-A) and the conventionally used aspherically optimized profile (ASA, or aberration smart ablation) for correction of low-to-high myopia. SETTING: Augen-OP-Centrum, Cologne, Germany. DESIGN: Retrospective nonrandomized comparative study. METHODS: A central database at the Augen-OP-Centrum was used to gather retrospective data for low-to-high myopia (up to -10 D). One hundred and seven eyes (56 patients) were treated with the ASA profile, and 79 eyes (46 patients) were treated with the Triple-A profile. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year follow-up time points. RESULTS: The Triple-A profile showed better predictability indicated by a significantly lower standard deviation of residuals (0.32-0.34 vs 0.36-0.44, Triple-A vs ASA) in the 6-month to 1-year period. The Triple-A group had better stability across all time intervals and achieved better postoperative astigmatism improvements with significantly lower scatter. This group achieved better safety at 1 year, with 100% of eyes showing no change or gain in Snellen lines, compared with 97% in the ASA group. A better safety index was observed for the Triple-A group at later time points. The Triple-A group had a better efficacy index and a higher percentage of eyes with an uncorrected Snellen visual acuity of 20/20 or greater at all investigated follow-up time points. CONCLUSION: The new aspherically optimized Triple-A profile can safely and effectively correct low-to-high myopia. It has demonstrated superiority over the ASA profile in most refractive outcomes.