A comparison of safety and clinical outcomes of 100µ vs 160µ cap in patients undergoing ReLEx small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE)

Session Details

Session Title: Small Lenticule Extraction I

Session Date/Time: Sunday 15/09/2019 | 08:00-10:00

Paper Time: 09:24

Venue: Free Paper Forum: Podium 1

First Author: : S.Pereira INDIA

Co Author(s): :    S. Ganesh   S. Brar                          

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To determine the safety, efficacy and clinical outcomes of of 100 µ vs 160µ cap in patients undergoing ReLEx-Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE).

Setting:

Nethradhama Superspeciality Eye Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Methods:

This prospective, comparative, non-randomized clinical trial included hundred eyes from 50 patients, undergoing bilateral ReLEx SMILE for myopia ranging from -1 to -6 D spherical equivalent. Twenty five patients received treatment with standard 100 µ cap thickness, while the remaining 25 patients underwent the same procedure but with a 160 µ cap thickness in both eyes.Manifest refraction, UDVA, CDVA, contrast sensitivity, aberrations and dry eye were evaluated along with a subjective questionnaire at 2 weeks and 3 months post-operatively. Mean follow up was 90± 15 days

Results:

At two weeks and 3 months post-operative, compared to the pre-operative values, the mean log-MAR UDVA, CDVA, spherical equivalent, contrast sensitivity higher order aberrations did not show statistically significant differences (p > .05) between the two study groups. However, significant reduction in Schirmer’s II and TBUT scores was observed compared to pre-operative scores at 3 months in 100µ group(p > .05) but not in160 µ group.Patients did not report significant subjective complaints in either groups treated, when leading questions were asked through a subjective questionnaire

Conclusions:

ReLEx SMILE with 160 µ cap thickness was equally safe and efficacious as 100 µ cap, with no unique complications observed by keeping a thicker cap.Post operative dry eye was significantly less in 160 µ group, suggesting an advantage in patients with pre existing dryness or contact lens users.

Financial Disclosure:

None