Abstract
Introduction
This study aimed to evaluate the short-term impact of different incision positions on astigmatism and visual quality after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) surgery.
Methods
This prospective study enrolled patients who decided to have SMILE to correct myopia. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups of different incision positions (group A, B, and C with incision position at 90°, 120°, and 150° respectively). Preoperative and postoperative visual acuity, spherical equivalent, and high-order aberrations (HOAs) were measured and compared among groups. Astigmatism was analyzed with the ASSORT Group Analysis Calculator based on the Alpins method.
Results
A total of 148 eyes were included for analysis (48 eyes in group A, 50 eyes in group B, and 50 eyes in group C). At 1 month postoperatively, the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) logMAR in group A, B, and C was − 0.03, − 0.03, and − 0.04, respectively. The mean corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) logMAR in group A, B, and C was − 0.03, − 0.04, and − 0.04, respectively (P > 0.05). The mean postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) values were − 0.01 ± 0.38, − 0.07 ± 0.39, and − 0.16 ± 0.49 (D) in group A, B, and C, respectively (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in preoperative and postoperative magnitude of astigmatism among different groups (P > 0.05). Significant differences were found in the distribution of astigmatism axis among the three groups at 1 day (P = 0.02) and 1 week (P = 0.02) postoperatively. However, such differences were no longer significant at 1 month after surgery (P > 0.05). No significant differences were found in HOAs among different groups 1 month after surgery (P > 0.05).
Conclusion
Different incision positions have no effect on postoperative astigmatism and visual quality 1 month after SMILE surgery, though differences were found in the distribution of the astigmatism axis within 1 week after the surgery.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) has been widely adopted for treating myopia and myopic astigmatism, and different incision positions might be set during surgery for personal preference. |
This prospective study evaluated the influence of incision position on visual quality and astigmatism after SMILE, and the results showed that different incision positions had no effect on postoperative astigmatism and visual quality as early as 1 month after surgery. |
The incision position might be individually designed on the basis of the specific situation during SMILE surgery. |
Introduction
Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) has been widely accepted in treating myopia with high efficacy and safety [1, 2]. SMILE surgery does not require the creation of a flap, which has several advantages including small incision, more subepithelial nerve retention, biomechanical stability, and fewer postoperative dry eye symptoms [3,4,5]. However, the small incision during SMILE surgery makes it technically more challenging than flap-based corneal ablation procedures [6, 7].
Standard SMILE procedure involves the creation of intrastromal lenticule using femtosecond laser, and extraction of the refractive lenticule through a peripheral incision of 2–5 mm width. Different surgeons may choose different incision positions through the SMILE platform for personal preference [8, 9]. However, the effect of different incision positions on postoperative visual qualities after SMILE surgery needs to be elucidated. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the short-term influence of incision position on astigmatism and visual quality after SMILE procedure.
Methods
This prospective study recruited patients who voluntarily accept SMILE surgery for myopia or myopic astigmatism correction between July 2021 and August 2022 in the Department of Ophthalmology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH). The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of PUMCH (ZS-3516) and registered at chictr.org.cn (Registration number ChiCTR2000039272). The study sample size was based on the postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCVA). In this study, a UCVA difference of 0.096 logMAR will be considered clinically meaningful and the standard deviation of postoperative UCVA is about 0.12 based on previous studies [10, 11]; thus, a total sample size of 117 eyes (39 eyes per group) will be needed for 5% significance and 80% power. Participants were randomly allocated to groups A–C in a ratio of 1:1:1. The randomization sequence was generated using an internet-based randomization tool provided by the China clinical trial registration center (http://www.medresman.org/login.aspx). The tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki were followed throughout the study and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was 16/20 or better in all eyes, and the target postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) was plano. Patients with myopia SE ≥ − 10.00 D and astigmatism ≥ − 2.00 D were included in the study.
Surgical Techniques
SMILE procedures were performed by one experienced surgeon using the VisuMax femtosecond laser platform (Carl Zeiss, Meditec, Jena, Germany). Patients were randomly allocated into three groups with different incision positions: group A (90°), group B (120°), and group C (150°). Femtosecond scanning was performed with a repetition rate of 500 kHz and a pulse energy of 130 nJ using 4.5 μm spot/track distance on lenticule and cap, and 2 μm spot/track distance on lenticule side cut. The intended cap thickness was set to 120 μm, the diameter of lenticule was set to 6.5 mm, and the cap diameter 7.6 mm in all cases. The width of the incision was set to 2 mm at different positions. The lenticule was subsequently dissected and removed from the microincision. All surgical parameters were identical except the incision position among different groups.
Preoperative and Postoperative Examinations
All patients underwent thorough preoperative and postoperative examinations, including uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), CDVA, subjective refraction, non-contact intraocular pressure, slit-lamp microscopy, central corneal thickness (AL-3000, Tomey, Nagoya, Japan), corneal topography (PentacamHR, Oculus, Germany), and fundus examination. Follow-up examinations were performed at 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month postoperatively. The safety index was defined as CDVA after treatment divided by CDVA before treatment (CDVA post/ CDVA pre). The efficacy index was defined as UCVA after treatment divided by CDVA before treatment (UCVA post/ CDVA pre). Short-term was defined as the period within 1 month after surgery. Visual quality contains subjective and objective visual quality, and only objective visual quality including visual acuity, and higher-order aberrations were evaluated in our study.
Objective visual quality was evaluated by iTrace system (Tracey, USA) preoperatively and 1 month after surgery by the same technician. A pupil diameter of 4.0 mm was set with the iTrace analyzer to get the data of total high-order aberrations (HOAs), corneal HOAs, coma, trefoil, and spherical aberration (SA).
Astigmatic Vector Analysis
Vector analysis of the manifest astigmatism was done with the ASSORT Group Analysis Calculator (ASSORT Pty. Ltd.) based on the Alpins method [12]. The following vectors were calculated: target-induced astigmatism (TIA), which represents the intended change in astigmatism; surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), which represents the actual change achieved in astigmatism; difference vector (DV), which represents the extra change required to achieve the intended target; and correction index (CI), which is the ratio between SIA magnitude and TIA magnitude.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS for Mac (SPSS 26, IBM Corporation, New York, USA). Differences of visual acuity, central corneal thickness (CCT), keratometry, SE, and HOAs among different groups were compared using a mixed-effects model with eyes as random effects. Chi-squared test was used to test for differences in the distribution of sex and the astigmatism axis. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
A total of 148 eyes of 74 patients with a mean age of 27.6 ± 7.4 years old were included for analysis. Mean preoperative corneal thickness was 547 ± 33 µm (range 481–661 µm), and average keratometry was 43.29 ± 1.14 (D) (range 40.37–46.14 D). The mean preoperative SE was − 5.42 ± 1.64 µm (range − 9.0 to − 1.75 D). The baseline characteristics of different incision position groups are shown in Table 1. There was no statistical difference among those three groups in preoperative corneal thickness, keratometry, SE, CDVA, and total HOAs.
Visual Acuity and Refractive Outcomes
At 1 month after the surgery, the efficacy index was 1.02 ± 0.09, 1.02 ± 0.07, and 1.02 ± 0.14 in group A, B, and C, respectively (P > 0.05). The safety index was 1.04 ± 0.11, 1.04 ± 0.08, and 1.04 ± 0.12 in group A, B, and C, respectively (P > 0.05). As shown in Fig. 1, no eyes lost two or more lines of CDVA in all groups. All eyes gained 20/25 or more UCVA at 1 month after the surgery. The mean UDVA logMAR in group A, B, and C was − 0.03, − 0.03, and − 0.04, respectively. The mean CDVA logMAR in group A, B, and C was − 0.03, − 0.04, and − 0.04, respectively, at 1 month postoperatively (P > 0.05). The mean postoperative SE values were − 0.01 ± 0.38, − 0.07 ± 0.39, and − 0.16 ± 0.49 (D) in group A, B, and C, respectively (P > 0.05) (Table 2). No statistically significant difference was found in CDVA among different groups 1 month postoperatively (P > 0.05, Fig. 1).
Astigmatism Correction
Figure 2 represents the magnitude and axis of preoperative and postoperative (1 month) astigmatism in different groups using the ASSORT Group Analysis Calculator based on the Alpins method. Mean TIA was 0.48 × 176°, 0.48 × 178°, and 0.58 × 180° in group A, B, and C, respectively (P > 0.05). Mean SIA was 0.42 × 177°, 0.38 × 178°, and 0.57 × 2° in group A, B, and C, respectively (P > 0.05). No significant difference was found in the mean DV among different groups 1 month postoperatively (P > 0.05). Group A and group B showed slightly undercorrected tendency (CI = 0.97 in group A, CI = 0.96 in group B), while group C was slightly overcorrected (CI = 1.01).
As shown in Table 3, there was no statistically significant difference in preoperative and postoperative magnitude of astigmatism among different groups (P > 0.05). However, significant differences were found in the distribution of astigmatism axis among the three groups at postoperative day 1 (P = 0.02) and week (P = 0.02). Specifically, group A had slightly higher proportion of ATR than the other two groups at 1 day and 1 week postoperatively; group B had higher proportion of WTR than the other two groups at 1 day and 1 week; and group C had higher proportion of oblique astigmatism than the other two groups at 1 day and 1 week postoperatively. Such differences were no longer significant at 1 month after the surgery (P > 0.05) (Table 3).
Visual Quality Evaluation
Table 4 presents the preoperative and postoperative high-order aberrations among different incision position groups. No significant differences were found in total HOAs, coma, spherical aberrations, or trefoil among different groups before the surgery, as well as 1 month after the surgery (Table 4, all P > 0.05).
Discussion
The VisuMax femtosecond laser platform provides surgeons with different incision position options, which could be set individually according to the specific situation. In most cases, the incisions are placed superiorly because the cover of the eyelid can prevent pathogens from entering the stroma pocket through the incision, thus increasing the safety of SMILE surgery. However, for patients who had a high eyebrow arch, superior incision may increase the difficulty of the operation and the incidence of intraoperative complications, such as corneal flap perforation and incision tear. To make the surgery safer and easier to perform, it has been suggested to set the incision position to around 145°, but this may cause concern for surgically induced astigmatism during the corneal incision healing process [13]. Our study found that different incision positions had no effect on postoperative astigmatism and visual quality 1 month after SMILE, suggesting that the position of incision could be individually designed on the basis of patients’ characteristics and surgeons’ preference.
A considerable amount of literature has been published on evaluating the safety and effectiveness of SMILE in correcting ametropia [14]. In the current study, we also found that SMILE provided good safety and effectiveness in correcting myopia and myopic astigmatism, and there was no statistical difference in postoperative visual acuity and refractions among different side-cut position groups. No intraoperative complications occurred in all groups. Compared to LASIK, the initial learning curve of the SMILE procedure may be more challenging for surgeons; as a result of its flapless nature, lenticule dissection and extraction are the most difficult steps for surgeons, and inappropriate performance may result in complications like side-cut tears, stoma damage, and retained lenticule [15]. Selecting an appropriate incision location according to the characteristics of the patient’s eyes may help reduce surgical complications, especially for beginners.
The current study found that different incision positions had no effect on astigmatism magnitude and axis distribution 1 month after SMILE, though significant differences were found in the distribution of astigmatism axis among three groups within 1 week postoperatively. The changes of axis distribution might be caused by the process of corneal wound healing [13]. Different incision positions accompanied by distinct surgical maneuvers might induce uneven distribution of the astigmatism axis shortly after SMILE surgery. However, owing to the microinvasive nature of the incision in SMILE surgery, the difference would become neglectable as early as 1 month postoperatively. Prior reports have shown that clear corneal incision was effective for correcting mild to moderate corneal astigmatism, and the size and location of incision may have an influence on surgically induced astigmatism [16, 17]. This controversy may be explained by the fact that incision depth in SMILE is much shallower than that in the clear corneal incision procedure, which usually reaches the two-thirds of the corneal depth [18]. Another possible explanation is that the wound healing process was different between these two procedures [13]. Compared to the clear corneal incision procedure, laser ablation causes less damage to the corneal epithelium and Bowman layer: this difference leads to less inflammation and corneal scar tissue with SMILE.
In addition, postoperative HOAs were compared to assess the difference in optical performance after SMILE in different incision position groups. The results showed that there were no statistically significant differences in induced HOAs, spherical aberrations, coma, and trefoil at 1 month after surgery among different incision positions. As mentioned in literature reviews, postoperative HOAs increased significantly after the SMILE procedure in patients with high myopia, and the increased HOA was related to preoperative astigmatism [19, 20]. However, for low to moderate myopia, the conclusion was not consistent in different studies [21,22,23]. This discrepancy could be attributed to the complex influences of wavefront aberrations, such as postoperative follow-up time, corneal irregularity, surgical setting, and wound healing process [24,25,26].
There are some limitations to this study. The follow-up time was relatively short, and the sample size was relatively small. Besides, the contrast sensitivity was not evaluated. Previous study has shown the corneal wound healing process mainly took place within 28 days after SMILE surgery, with the peak at 7 days. Scar tissue would form at the side-cut incision 1 month after surgery [13]. Our study proved that different incision positions had no effect on postoperative visual acuity and astigmatism 1 month after surgery. It is reasonable to suspect that such an effect would last for a longer postoperative period. What is more, patients with astigmatism over 2 D were not enrolled in this study. Although SMILE provides effective and predictable results in correcting astigmatism, evidence reveals a tendency toward undercorrection in the SMILE for treating astigmatism over 2 D [27, 28]. Our study excluded patients with astigmatism over 2 D to minimize the uncertainty of SMILE for high astigmatism.
Conclusions
Different incision positions have no effect on postoperative astigmatism and visual quality 1 month after SMILE surgery, and the incision position might be individually designed on the basis of the specific situation during SMILE surgery.
References
Yang W, Liu S, Li M, Shen Y, Zhou X. Visual outcomes after small incision lenticule extraction and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK for high myopia. Ophthalmic Res. 2020;63(4):427–33.
Taneri S, Kiessler S, Rost A, Schultz T, Dick HB. Small-incision lenticule extraction for the correction of myopic astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019;45(1):62–71.
Chung B, Choi M, Lee KY, et al. Comparing dry eye disease after small incision lenticule extraction and laser subepithelial keratomileusis. Cornea. 2020;39(4):501–7.
Denoyer A, Landman E, Trinh L, Faure JF, Auclin F, Baudouin C. Dry eye disease after refractive surgery: comparative outcomes of small incision lenticule extraction versus LASIK. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(4):669–76.
Kanellopoulos AJ. Comparison of corneal biomechanics after myopic small-incision lenticule extraction compared to LASIK: an ex vivo study. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:237–45.
Wang Y, Ma J, Zhang L, et al. Postoperative corneal complications in small incision lenticule extraction: long-term study. J Refract Surg. 2019;35(3):146–52.
Alio JL, Soria F, Serna-Ojeda JC, Graue-Hernández EO. Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) complications. In: Alio J, Azar D, editors. Management of complications in refractive surgery. Management of complications in refractive surgery. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 221–6.
Hou X, Du K, Wen D, et al. Early visual quality outcomes after small-incision lenticule extraction surgery for correcting high myopic astigmatism. BMC Ophthalmol. 2021;21(1):48.
Gyldenkerne A, Ivarsen A, Hjortdal J. Optical and visual quality after small-incision lenticule extraction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019;45(1):54–61.
Primavera L, Canto-Cerdan M, Alio JL, Alio Del Barrio JL. Influence of age on small incision lenticule extraction outcomes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2022;106(3):341–8.
Taneri S, Kießler S, Rost A, Schultz T, Dick HB. Clinical outcomes of small incision lenticule extraction versus advanced surface ablation in low myopia. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2020;30(6):1278–86.
Alpins N. Astigmatism analysis by the Alpins method. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27(1):31–49.
Sun Y, Zhang T, Liu M, et al. Early corneal wound healing response after small incision lenticule extraction. Cornea. 2019;38(12):1582–8.
Aruma A, Li M, Choi J, et al. Visual outcomes after small incision lenticule extraction and implantable collamer lens V4c for moderate myopia: 1-year results. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021;259(8):2431–40.
Titiyal JS, Kaur M, Rathi A, Falera R, Chaniyara M, Sharma N. Learning curve of small incision lenticule extraction: challenges and complications. Cornea. 2017;36(11):1377–82.
Piao J, Joo CK. Site of clear corneal incision in cataract surgery and its effects on surgically induced astigmatism. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):3955.
Ren Y, Fang X, Fang A, Wang L, Jhanji V, Gong X. Phacoemulsification with 3.0 and 2.0 mm opposite clear corneal incisions for correction of corneal astigmatism. Cornea. 2019;38(9):1105–1110.
He Q, Huang J, He X, Yu W, Yap M, Han W. Effect of corneal incision features on anterior and posterior corneal astigmatism and higher-order aberrations after cataract surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. 2021;99(7):e1027–40.
Lee H, Yong Kang DS, Reinstein DZ, et al. Comparing corneal higher-order aberrations in corneal wavefront-guided transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy versus small-incision lenticule extraction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018;44(6):725–33.
Miao H, He L, Shen Y, Li M, Yu Y, Zhou X. Optical quality and intraocular scattering after femtosecond laser small incision lenticule extraction. J Refract Surg. 2014;30(5):296–302.
Kanellopoulos AJ. Topography-guided LASIK versus small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for myopia and myopic astigmatism: a randomized, prospective. Contralateral Eye Study J Refract Surg. 2017;33(5):306–12.
Chan TC, Ng AL, Cheng GP, et al. Vector analysis of astigmatic correction after small-incision lenticule extraction and femtosecond-assisted LASIK for low to moderate myopic astigmatism. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100(4):553–9.
Liu M, Chen Y, Wang D, et al. Clinical outcomes after SMILE and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK for myopia and myopic astigmatism: a prospective randomized comparative study. Cornea. 2016;35(2):210–6.
Dong Z, Zhou X, Wu J, et al. Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser LASIK: comparison of corneal wound healing and inflammation. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98(2):263–9.
Ji YW, Kim M, Kang DSY, et al. Effect of lowering laser energy on the surface roughness of human corneal lenticules in SMILE. J Refract Surg. 2017;33(9):617–24.
Xia L, Zhang J, Wu J, Yu K. Comparison of corneal biological healing after femtosecond LASIK and small incision lenticule extraction procedure. Curr Eye Res. 2016;41(9):1202–8.
Song J, Cao H, Chen X, et al. Small Incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) versus laser assisted stromal in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for astigmatism corrections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2022;247:181–99.
Han T, Xu Y, Han X, et al. Three-year outcomes of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for myopia and myopic astigmatism. Br J Ophthalmol. 2019;103(4):565–8.
Acknowledgements
Funding
This study and its publication, including the journal’s Rapid Service Fee, were funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 82000863) and National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding (Grant No. 2022-PUMCH-A-198).
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Di Chen; Methodology: Shan Yang, Di Chen; Software: Shan Yang, Tianze Huang, Yuchen Wang, Ken Ning; Validation: Shan Yang, Di Chen; Formal analysis: Shan Yang, Di Chen; Investigation: Di Chen, Qing Long, Zhonghai Wang, Ying Li; Resources: Di Chen, Ying Li; Data curation: Qing Long, Zhonghai Wang, Ying Li, Di Chen; Writing-Original Draft: Shan Yang; Writing-Review & Editing: Shan Yang, Di Chen; Visualization: Shan Yang; Supervision, project administration and funding acquisition: Di Chen. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Disclosures
Shan Yang, Tianze Huang, Yuchen Wang, Ken Ning, Qing Long, Zhonghai Wang, Ying Li and Di Chen have nothing to disclose.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Peking Union Medical College Hospital (ZS-3516) and registered at chictr.org.cn (Registration number ChiCTR2000039272). Informed consent was obtained from all patients (reference to: https://www.chictr.org.cn). The tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki were followed throughout the study.
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, S., Huang, T., Wang, Y. et al. Short-Term Impact of Different Corneal Incision Positions on Postoperative Astigmatism and Visual Quality After SMILE Surgery. Ophthalmol Ther 12, 2453–2464 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-023-00748-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-023-00748-3