Posters

Comparison of three different hyperopic treatment options

Poster Details

First Author: J. Mehta SINGAPORE

Co Author(s):                        

Abstract Details

Purpose:

Laser Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) is a well-established technique for correcting hyperopia, but regression of refractive power is a common issue post-operation. In hyperopic SMILE, the femtosecond laser dissects out a concave lenticule, which is extracted from the cornea, achieving a steeper central corneal configuration with higher refractive power. Implanting a convex lenticule, which in turn is derived from femtosecond laser-guided lenticule extraction, is yet another option to address hyperopia.

Setting:

Singapore Eye Research Institute

Methods:

18 macaques were divided into six groups of three. In two groups, +2.0D hyperopic treatments were performed, with LASIK on one eye, and SMILE on the other eye. This was repeated in another two groups, but with +4.0D treatment. In the fifth group, a -2.0D lenticule was extracted from one eye of each monkey and implanted autologously into the other eye; this procedure was performed again with -4.0D lenticules in the sixth group. Slit-lamp imaging, anterior segment OCT, in-vivo confocal microscopy, keratometry and refractive error measurements were performed pre-operatively and post-operatively. Immunohistochemistry was done at 3 months.

Results:

Slit-lamp examination showed clear corneas throughout follow-up in all groups. Refractive parameters including corneal thickness, anterior curvature and refractive error indices were not statistically different amongst treatment modalities. In-vivo confocal microscopy showed similar patterns across all groups over time. Immunohistochemistry showed comparable inflammatory responses, and no structural deficits with different treatments.

Conclusions:

The results from our study suggests that SMILE and lenticule re-implantation are safe and viable methods for treating hyperopia. SMILE may be comparable to LASIK for both +2.0D and +4.0D treatments; re-implantation may be comparable to LASIK for +4.0D treatment, but was not effective in +2.0D treatment.

Financial Disclosure:

NONE