4.3 Article

Differences in the Corneal Biomechanical Changes After SMILE and LASIK

Journal

JOURNAL OF REFRACTIVE SURGERY
Volume 30, Issue 10, Pages 702-U57

Publisher

SLACK INC
DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20140903-09

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81110538]
  2. Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou, Guangzhou, China [12S202060079]
  3. Henry G. Leong Endowed Professorship fund
  4. PolyU research grant GUA32 for supporting analysis work in Hong Kong

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To compare the corneal biomechanical properties before and after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK in different levels of myopia with the Ocular Response Analyzer (Reichert Ophthalmic Instruments, Depew, NY). METHODS: A total of 187 and 79 eyes that received SMILE or LASIK, respectively, between January and June 2013 at Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center were enrolled in this study. Patients were grouped according to surgery type (SMILE or LASIK) and -6.00 diopters (D) or less (< -6.00 D) or myopia greater than -6.00 D (> -6.00 D). Corneal hysteresis, corneal resistance factor, and 37 waveform parameters were recorded and compared preoperatively and at 1 week and 1 and 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease of corneal hysteresis, corneal resistance factor, p1area, and p2area, and an increase of path1 and path2 in both SMILE and LASIK. In myopia -6.00 D or less, the differences between SMILE and LASIK were not significant (P > .05), but in myopia greater than-6.00 D, the corneal hysteresis, corneal resistance factor, p1area, and p2area decreased significantly more in LASIK than in SMILE (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: When comparing SMILE with LASIK, myopia was greater than -6.00 D, and the corneal hysteresis, corneal resistance factor, p1area, and p2area decrease was less after SMILE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available