39. COMPARISON OF SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING SMILE REFRACTIVE SURGERY WITH FLAP THICKNESS OF 100 μM AND 160 μM

Dinh Thi Phuong Thuy1, Pham Trong Van2, Nguyen Kiem Hiep3
1 Dong Do Hospital
2 Hanoi Medical University
3 Vietnam National Eye Hospital

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: Evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and clinical outcomes of patients treated with smallincision surgical removal of corneal tissue (ReLEx SMILE) using a flap thickness of 100μ compared to 160μ.


Method: A non-randomized clinical trial with a prospective control group was conducted on 100 eyes of 50 patients undergoing myopia treatment ranging from -1D to -6D spherical equivalent using ReLEx SMILE. Among them, 25 patients were treated with a standard flap thickness of 100μ, while the remaining 25 patients were treated with a flap thickness of 160μ in both eyes. Parameters including corneal refractive power, uncorrected visual acuity, corrected visual acuity (logMAR), corneal astigmatism, higher-order aberrations, and dry eye were assessed, along with subjective questionnaires at 2 weeks and 3 months post-surgery. The average follow-up time was 90 ± 15 days.


Results: At 2 weeks and 3 months post-surgery, compared to preoperative measurements, the mean values of uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity, corneal astigmatism, contrast sensitivity, and higher-order aberrations showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) between the two study groups. However, Schirmer’s II and tear breakup time (TBUT) at 3 months were significantly reduced in the group treated with the 100μ flap thickness, but not in the 160μ group. Patients in both groups reported minimal subjective complaints in response to questionnaires.


Conclusion: ReLEx SMILE with a flap thickness of 160μ demonstrates comparable safety and effectiveness to the 100μ flap thickness, without any statistically significant complications observed when using a thicker flap. Additionally, postoperative dry eye symptoms were significantly reduced in the 160μ group, offering an advantage in treating patients with pre-existing dry eye or contact lens wearers.

Article Details

References

[1] Ang M, Tan D, Mehta JS, Small incision
lenticule extraction (SMILE) versus laser insitu
keratomileusis (LASIK): study protocol
for a randomized, non-inferiority trial. Trials
13:75, 2012304
[2] Ganesh S, Gupta R, Comparison of visual and
refractive outcomes following femtosecond laser
assisted LASIK with SMILE in patients with
myopia or myopic astigmatism. J Refract Surg
30, 2014, 590–596.
[3] Smith J, Nichols KK, Baldwin EK, Current
patterns in the use of diagnostic tests in dry eye
evaluation. Cornea 27(6), 2008, 656–662.
[4] Marfurt CF, Cox J, Deek S et al., Anatomy of the
human corneal innervation. Exp Eye Res 90(4),
2010, 478–492 8.
[5] Li M, Zhao J, Comparison of dry eye and corneal
sensitivity between small incision lenticule
extraction and femtosecond LASIK for myopia.
PLoS ONE 8(10):e77797, 2013.
[6] Knox Cartwright NE, Tyrer JR, Jaycock P et
al., The effects of variation in depth and side cut
angu- lation in sub-Bowman’s keratomileusis
and LASIK using a femtosecond laser: a
biomechanical study. J Refract Surg 28(6), 2012,
419–425.
[7] Lee BS, Gupta PK, David EA et al., Out- comes
of photorefractive keratectomy enhancement
after LASIK. J Refract Surg 30, 2014,549–556.
[8] Gu ̈ell JL, et al., SMILE procedures with four
different cap thickness for the cor- rection of
myopia and myopic astigmatism. J Refract Surg.
31(9), 2015, 580–585