File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Comparison of Visual, Refractive and Ocular Surface Outcomes Between Small Incision Lenticule Extraction and Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis for Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism

TitleComparison of Visual, Refractive and Ocular Surface Outcomes Between Small Incision Lenticule Extraction and Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis for Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism
Authors
KeywordsAstigmatism
Corneal sensitivity
Dry eye
Laser refractive surgery
LASIK
Myopia
SMILE
Issue Date2019
PublisherAdis International Ltd.. The Journal's web site is located at https://link.springer.com/journal/40123
Citation
Ophthalmology and Therapy, 2019 How to Cite?
AbstractLaser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) is the most commonly performed laser refractive surgical technique worldwide for the treatment of myopia and myopic astigmatism. In recent years, small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) has emerged as a promising alternative to LASIK, requiring only a single femtosecond laser to create an intrastromal lenticule, which is then removed via a small incision. The technique obviates the need for a corneal flap. A number of published studies have compared the two techniques in terms of visual, refractive and ocular surface outcomes. This review compares the clinical outcomes between LASIK and SMILE in treating myopia and myopic astigmatism based on studies published in the last 5 years. Twenty-two studies were included, all of which were observational in nature. Results suggest that the two techniques have comparable visual outcomes in terms of safety, efficacy and predictability, although recovery in visual acuity may be slower in SMILE-treated than LASIK-treated eyes. SMILE is found to result in less severe postoperative dry eye symptoms and faster recovery of corneal sensitivity than LASIK. It is important to note, however, that the SMILE technique is limited by the lack of a cyclotorsion-compensation system and option for customized treatment profile. The heterogeneity of results in this review may be attributable to the use of different LASIK platforms in different studies. Few studies compared the outcomes regarding severity of myopia. Future prospective randomized controlled trials with a larger sample size and longer follow-up period will be highly beneficial for progress in this field.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/271918
ISSN
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.642

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLau, YTY-
dc.contributor.authorShih, KC-
dc.contributor.authorTse, RHK-
dc.contributor.authorChan, TCY-
dc.contributor.authorJhanji, V-
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-20T10:32:03Z-
dc.date.available2019-07-20T10:32:03Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationOphthalmology and Therapy, 2019-
dc.identifier.issn2193-8245-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/271918-
dc.description.abstractLaser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) is the most commonly performed laser refractive surgical technique worldwide for the treatment of myopia and myopic astigmatism. In recent years, small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) has emerged as a promising alternative to LASIK, requiring only a single femtosecond laser to create an intrastromal lenticule, which is then removed via a small incision. The technique obviates the need for a corneal flap. A number of published studies have compared the two techniques in terms of visual, refractive and ocular surface outcomes. This review compares the clinical outcomes between LASIK and SMILE in treating myopia and myopic astigmatism based on studies published in the last 5 years. Twenty-two studies were included, all of which were observational in nature. Results suggest that the two techniques have comparable visual outcomes in terms of safety, efficacy and predictability, although recovery in visual acuity may be slower in SMILE-treated than LASIK-treated eyes. SMILE is found to result in less severe postoperative dry eye symptoms and faster recovery of corneal sensitivity than LASIK. It is important to note, however, that the SMILE technique is limited by the lack of a cyclotorsion-compensation system and option for customized treatment profile. The heterogeneity of results in this review may be attributable to the use of different LASIK platforms in different studies. Few studies compared the outcomes regarding severity of myopia. Future prospective randomized controlled trials with a larger sample size and longer follow-up period will be highly beneficial for progress in this field.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherAdis International Ltd.. The Journal's web site is located at https://link.springer.com/journal/40123-
dc.relation.ispartofOphthalmology and Therapy-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectAstigmatism-
dc.subjectCorneal sensitivity-
dc.subjectDry eye-
dc.subjectLaser refractive surgery-
dc.subjectLASIK-
dc.subjectMyopia-
dc.subjectSMILE-
dc.titleComparison of Visual, Refractive and Ocular Surface Outcomes Between Small Incision Lenticule Extraction and Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis for Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailShih, KC: kcshih@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityShih, KC=rp01374-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s40123-019-0202-x-
dc.identifier.pmid31325106-
dc.identifier.hkuros299573-
dc.identifier.hkuros299009-
dc.publisher.placeNew Zealand-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats