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...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Hindawi Limited
2017-01-01
|
Series: | Journal of Ophthalmology |
Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/8259546 |
id |
doaj-8d46266a5fb64302ba3a78a7060e7d36 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-8d46266a5fb64302ba3a78a7060e7d362020-11-24T20:52:38ZengHindawi LimitedJournal of Ophthalmology2090-004X2090-00582017-01-01201710.1155/2017/82595468259546Effect of Cap-Lenticule Diameter Difference on the Visual Outcome and Higher-Order Aberrations in SMILE: 0.4 mm versus 1.0 mmBanu Torun Acar0Suphi Acar1Bati Goz Hospital, Istanbul, TurkeyBati Goz Hospital, Istanbul, TurkeyPurpose. 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 μm and 0.32 ± 0.26 μm, 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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/8259546 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Banu Torun Acar Suphi Acar |
spellingShingle |
Banu Torun Acar Suphi Acar Effect of Cap-Lenticule Diameter Difference on the Visual Outcome and Higher-Order Aberrations in SMILE: 0.4 mm versus 1.0 mm Journal of Ophthalmology |
author_facet |
Banu Torun Acar Suphi Acar |
author_sort |
Banu Torun Acar |
title |
Effect of Cap-Lenticule Diameter Difference on the Visual Outcome and Higher-Order Aberrations in SMILE: 0.4 mm versus 1.0 mm |
title_short |
Effect of Cap-Lenticule Diameter Difference on the Visual Outcome and Higher-Order Aberrations in SMILE: 0.4 mm versus 1.0 mm |
title_full |
Effect of Cap-Lenticule Diameter Difference on the Visual Outcome and Higher-Order Aberrations in SMILE: 0.4 mm versus 1.0 mm |
title_fullStr |
Effect of Cap-Lenticule Diameter Difference on the Visual Outcome and Higher-Order Aberrations in SMILE: 0.4 mm versus 1.0 mm |
title_full_unstemmed |
Effect of Cap-Lenticule Diameter Difference on the Visual Outcome and Higher-Order Aberrations in SMILE: 0.4 mm versus 1.0 mm |
title_sort |
effect of cap-lenticule diameter difference on the visual outcome and higher-order aberrations in smile: 0.4 mm versus 1.0 mm |
publisher |
Hindawi Limited |
series |
Journal of Ophthalmology |
issn |
2090-004X 2090-0058 |
publishDate |
2017-01-01 |
description |
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 μm and 0.32 ± 0.26 μm, 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. |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/8259546 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT banutorunacar effectofcaplenticulediameterdifferenceonthevisualoutcomeandhigherorderaberrationsinsmile04mmversus10mm AT suphiacar effectofcaplenticulediameterdifferenceonthevisualoutcomeandhigherorderaberrationsinsmile04mmversus10mm |
_version_ |
1716799132090236928 |