Posters

Long-term results of refractive lenticule extraction ReLEx SMILE compared to Femto-LASIK

Poster Details

First Author: P. Hagen GERMANY

Co Author(s): D. Breyer   H. Kaymak   K. Klabe   F. Kretz   G. Auffarth        

Abstract Details

Purpose:

The aim of this retrospective quality management investigation was to answer the question whether 3 years after surgery the visual outcomes for ReLEx smile are as safe, predictable and efficient as those after Femto-LASIK.

Setting:

All ReLEx SMILE (VisuMax, CZM) and Femto-LASIK (Mel80, CZM) treatments and follow-ups were performed at the Breyer-Kaymak-Klabe Eyesurgery in Duesseldorf, Germany, which is part of the International Vision Correcton Research Center (IVCRC.net).

Methods:

So far the results of 700 eyes in the ReLEx smile group (cap thickness: 120-150μm) and 400 eyes operated with Femto-LASIK (flap thickness: 100-120µm) in the control group are evaluated. Follow up was performed between 1 day and 3 years after treatment. For clinical evaluation visual acuity at far, subjective refraction and wave front analysis (KR-1W, Topcon) were compared. Additionally patient questionnaires were evaluated for dry eye symptoms, comfort and recovery time.

Results:

Concerning safety, predictability and efficiency we could not detect significant differences between both methods. Both groups showed a mean monocular UDVA of<0.05 LogMAR 1 year after surgery which remained stable within the 3 years follow up period. Visual recovery with the ReLEx smile group was as fast as with the flap-based LASIK. There were significantly lower total higher order aberrations in the ReLEx smile group.

Conclusions:

Three years after surgery, ReLEx smile and Femto-LASIK show equally good results in terms of safety, predictability and efficacy. However, no dry eyes were observed in the ReLEx smile group compared to the Femto-LASIK group. Therefore, we clearly favor the ReLEx smile technique in patients who ask for painless refractive correction.

Financial Disclosure:

receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a competing company