These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: SMILE, Topography-Guided LASIK, and Wavefront-Guided LASIK: Review of Clinical Outcomes in Premarket Approval FDA Studies.
    Author: Schallhorn JM, Seifert S, Schallhorn SC.
    Journal: J Refract Surg; 2019 Nov 01; 35(11):690-698. PubMed ID: 31710370.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To review clinical outcomes of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration premarket approval (PMA) studies of the three recently approved refractive surgery platforms for the correction of spherocylindrical myopia. METHODS: Clinical outcomes and vector analysis of astigmatism were reviewed and compared between wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) (WFG group) (STAR S4 IR with iDesign aberrometer; Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Santa Ana, CA), topography-guided LASIK (TOPO group) (Allegretto Wave Eye-Q laser; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX), and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE group) (VisuMax laser; Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany). RESULTS: The number of eyes included was 304, 249, and 334 for the SMILE, TOPO, and WFG groups, respectively. The WFG group had the highest preoperative spherical equivalent refraction (-6.21 ± 2.78 diopters [D]), followed by the SMILE (-5.39 ± 2.30 D) and TOPO (-4.61 ± 2.43 D) groups. At 6 months postoperatively, 83.7%, 88.9%, and 82.6% of eyes in the SMILE, TOPO, and WFG groups, respectively, had uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/20 or better. SMILE showed slower visual recovery at early postoperative examinations, whereas the WFG group had a decrease in UDVA over time due to refractive regression. The mean refractive cylinder changed from -1.53 ± 0.70 D preoperatively to -0.22 ± 0.33 D at 6 months postoperatively in the SMILE group, -1.19 ± 1.23 to -0.19 ± 0.30 D in the TOPO group, and -1.77 ± 1.65 to -0.33 ± 0.36 D in the WFG group. With all three procedures, undercorrection of refractive cylinder was seen with increasing attempted correction. CONCLUSIONS: All three procedures demonstrated excellent outcomes, considering differences in attempted correction between studies. No obvious superiority of one technique over the others was found in astigmatic correction. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(11):690-698.].
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]