Andrew Yazji*, Joseph Ling, William F Wiley, Shamik Bafna, Ashraf Ahmad and Jeffrey Augustine

Cleveland Eye Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

*Corresponding Author: Andrew Yazji, Cleveland Eye Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

Received: August 04, 2021; Published: August 26, 2021

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the refractive and visual outcomes after Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) in patients receiving irrigation of the stromal interface versus no irrigation in the United States based on FDA-approved parameters.

Methods: In this US-based, single-center, consecutive, retrospective case series, patients undergoing SMILE received irrigation in one eye versus no irrigation in the other eye. Primary outcome measures included uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) post-op day 1, post-op week 1, and post-op month 1, mean manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE), and the number of patients within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D of refractive target. Same-day post-op pachymetry and anterior-segment OCT were also obtained. Safety was assessed by noting the incidence of complications and need for additional surgery.

Results: 32 patients were included in the study, with 32 eyes in both the irrigated and non-irrigated groups. All patients were targeted for plano refraction. UCVA on POM1 was 0.0038 ± 0.164 D for irrigated eyes and -0.0154 ± 0.141 D for non-irrigated eyes (P = 0.40). The MRSE on POM1 was -0.232 ± 0.483 D for irrigated eyes and -0.274 ± 0.539 D for non-irrigated eyes. In the irrigated eyes group on POM1, 21 of 21 patients were within ±1.0 D of refractive target compared to 18 of 21 in the non-irrigated group. Adjusting for expected pachymetry, irrigated eyes had an average of 15.406 ± 0.347 microns thicker post-operative pachymetry readings compared to the non-irrigated eyes (P = 0.006).

Conclusion: Irrigated eyes had better UCVA, lower MRSE, and deviated less from their refractive target compared to non-irrigated eyes. Irrigated eyes had a significant increase in corneal pachymetry measured immediately postoperatively compared to non-irrigated eyes, however its effect on visual outcome was not significant.

Keywords: SMILE; Refractive Surgery; Ophthalmic Surgery

References

1. Moshirfar M., et al. “Hyperopic small-incision lenticule extraction”. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology4 (2019): 229-235.
2. Ganesh S., et al. “Refractive lenticule extraction small incision lenticule extraction”. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology1 (2018): 10-19.
3. Shah R. “History and Results; Indications and Contraindications of SMILE Compared With LASIK”. The Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology5 (2019): 371-376.
4. Titiyal JS., et al. “Learning Curve of Small Incision Lenticule Extraction: Challenges and Complications”. Cornea11 (2017): 1377-1382.
5. Titiyal JS., et al. “Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) techniques: patient selection and perspectives”. Clinical Ophthalmology 12 (2018): 1685-1699.
6. Wang H., et al. “Effect of corneal stromal pocket irrigation in small-incision lenticule extraction”. Eye 34 (2020): 2328-2335.
7. Liu YC., et al. “Effect of Intraoperative Corneal Stromal Pocket Irrigation in Small Incision Lenticule Extraction”. BioMed Research International (2015): 928608.

Citation

Citation: Andrew Yazji., et al. “Visual Outcome with Irrigation of the Interface in Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction".Acta Scientific Ophthalmology 4.9 (2021): 59-62.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2021 Andrew Yazji., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.