We have located links that may give you full text access.
Effect of Cap-Lenticule Diameter Difference on the Visual Outcome and Higher-Order Aberrations in SMILE: 0.4 mm versus 1.0 mm.
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of cap-lenticule diameter difference (CLDD) on the visual outcome and higher-order aberrations (HOAs) of small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).
Methods: A total of 132 patients who had bilateral SMILE for myopia or myopic astigmatism were included. The CLDD was 0.4 mm in 54 patients (group 1) and 1.0 mm in 78 patients (group 2). The refractive parameters, uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and HOAs were determined preoperatively and during six months follow-up.
Results: Group 1 had better CDVA (in logMAR) compared to group 2 at day 1 (-0.07 ± 0.07 versus 0.04 ± 0.07, resp.; p < 0.001) and week 1 (-0.07 ± 0.07 versus -0.04 ± 0.07, resp.; p = 0.001). The visual acuity improved more in group 1 than in group 2. The UDVA (in logMAR) was 0.07 ± 0.07 and 0.29 ± 0.09 at day 1 ( p < 0.001) and -0.08 ± 0.07 and -0.06 ± 0.06 at six months ( p = 0.038) in group 1 and group 2, respectively. Group 1 was associated with significantly less induction of HOAs (0.24 ± 0.08 μ m and 0.32 ± 0.26 μ m, resp.; p = 0.002).
Conclusions: In SMILE, 0.4 mm CLDD is associated with better visual outcome and less induction of HOAs than 1.0 mm. Narrow CLDD should be considered in SMILE to increase the visual acuity particularly in the early postoperative period.
Methods: A total of 132 patients who had bilateral SMILE for myopia or myopic astigmatism were included. The CLDD was 0.4 mm in 54 patients (group 1) and 1.0 mm in 78 patients (group 2). The refractive parameters, uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and HOAs were determined preoperatively and during six months follow-up.
Results: Group 1 had better CDVA (in logMAR) compared to group 2 at day 1 (-0.07 ± 0.07 versus 0.04 ± 0.07, resp.; p < 0.001) and week 1 (-0.07 ± 0.07 versus -0.04 ± 0.07, resp.; p = 0.001). The visual acuity improved more in group 1 than in group 2. The UDVA (in logMAR) was 0.07 ± 0.07 and 0.29 ± 0.09 at day 1 ( p < 0.001) and -0.08 ± 0.07 and -0.06 ± 0.06 at six months ( p = 0.038) in group 1 and group 2, respectively. Group 1 was associated with significantly less induction of HOAs (0.24 ± 0.08 μ m and 0.32 ± 0.26 μ m, resp.; p = 0.002).
Conclusions: In SMILE, 0.4 mm CLDD is associated with better visual outcome and less induction of HOAs than 1.0 mm. Narrow CLDD should be considered in SMILE to increase the visual acuity particularly in the early postoperative period.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app