Abstract
PURPOSE:
To investigate the biomechanical properties of the ex vivo human cornea after flap-based versus cap-based laser refractive surgery in the same donor.
METHODS:
In this experimental study, 11 pairs of human corneas unsuitable for transplantation were equally divided into two groups. Corneas from the right eye were treated with femtosecond laser–assisted LASIK (FSLASIK) and corneas from the left eye with small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Pachymetry was measured in each eye directly before laser refractive surgery. All corneas were subjected to a refractive correction of −10.00 diopters (D) sphere and −0.75 D cylinder at 0° with a 7-mm zone, using either a 110-μm flap (FS-LASIK) or 130-μm cap (SMILE). For two-dimensional biomechanical measurements, corneoscleral buttons underwent two testing cycles (preconditioning stress-strain curve from 0.03 to 9.0 N and stress-relaxation at 9.0 N during 120 sec) to analyze the elastic and viscoelastic material properties. The effective elastic modulus was calculated. Statistical analysis was performed with a confidence interval of 95%.
RESULTS:
In stress-strain measurements, the effective elastic modulus was 1.47 times higher (P = .003) after SMILE (median = 8.22 [interquartile range = 4.76] MPa) compared to FS-LASIK (median = 5.59 [inter-quartile range = 2.77] MPa). The effect size was large (r = 0.83). No significant differences (P = .658) were observed among stress-relaxation measurements, with a mean remaining stress of 181 ± 31 kPa after SMILE and 177 ± 26 kPa after FS-LASIK after relaxation.
CONCLUSIONS:
Compared to a flap-based procedure such as FS-LASIK, the SMILE technique can be considered superior in terms of biomechanical stability, when measured experimentally in ex vivo human fellow eye corneas.
[J Refract Surg. 2018;34(6):419–423.]
- 1.Sekundo W, Kunert KS, Blum M, Small incision corneal refractive surgery using the small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) procedure for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism: results of a 6 month prospective study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011; 95:335–339.
10.1136/bjo.2009.174284 Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 2.Ganesh S, Brar S, Pawar A. Matched population comparison of visual outcomes and patient satisfaction between 3 modalities for the correction of low to moderate myopic astigmatism. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017; 11:1253–1263.
10.2147/OPTH.S127101 Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 3.Xia L, Zhang J, Wu J, Yu K. Comparison of corneal biological healing after femtosecond LASIK and small incision lenticule extraction procedure. Curr Eye Res. 2016; 41:1202–1208.
10.3109/02713683.2015.1107590 Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 4.Shetty R, Francis M, Shroff R, Corneal biomechanical changes and tissue remodeling after SMILE and LASIK. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017; 58:5703–5712.
10.1167/iovs.17-22864 Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 5.Seven I, Vahdati A, Pedersen IB, Contralateral eye comparison of SMILE and flap-based corneal refractive surgery: computational analysis of biomechanical impact. J Refract Surg. 2017; 33:444–453.
10.3928/1081597X-20170504-01 LinkGoogle Scholar - 6.Yan H, Gong LY, Huang W, Peng YL, Clinical outcomes of small incision lenticule extraction versus femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK for myopia: a meta-analysis. Int J Ophthalmol. 2017; 10:1436–1445. MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 7.Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Randleman JB, Mathematical model to compare the relative tensile strength of the cornea after PRK, LASIK, and small incision lenticule extraction. J Refract Surg. 2013; 29:454–460.
10.3928/1081597X-20130617-03 LinkGoogle Scholar - 8.Sinha Roy A, Dupps WJ, Roberts CJ. Comparison of biomechanical effects of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and laser in situ keratomileusis: a finite element analysis study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014; 40:971–980.
10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.08.065 Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 9.Shen Y, Chen Z, Knorz MC, Li M, Zhao J, Zhou X. Comparison of corneal deformation parameters after SMILE, LASEK, and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK. J Refract Surg. 2014; 30:310–318.
10.3928/1081597X-20140422-01 LinkGoogle Scholar - 10.Wang D, Liu M, Chen Y, Differences in the corneal biomechanical changes after SMILE and LASIK. J Refract Surg. 2014; 30:702–707.
10.3928/1081597X-20140903-09 LinkGoogle Scholar - 11.Agca A, Ozgurhan EB, Demirok A, Comparison of corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor after small incision lenticule extraction and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK: a prospective fellow eye study. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2014; 37:77–80.
10.1016/j.clae.2013.05.003 Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 12.Pedersen IB, Bak-Nielsen S, Vestergaard AH, Ivarsen A, Hjortdal J. Corneal biomechanical properties after LASIK, ReLEx flex, and ReLEx smile by Scheimpflug-based dynamic tonometry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014; 252:1329–1335.
10.1007/s00417-014-2667-6 Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 13.Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Igarashi A, Kobashi H, Sato N, Ishii R. Intraindividual comparison of changes in corneal biomechanical parameters after femtosecond lenticule extraction and small-incision lenticule extraction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014; 40:963–970.
10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.12.013 Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 14.Sefat SM, Wiltfang R, Bechmann M, Mayer WJ, Kampik A, Kook D. Evaluation of changes in human corneas after femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) using non-contact tonometry and ultra-high-speed-camera (Corvis ST). Curr Eye Res. 2016; 41:917–922.
10.3109/02713683.2015.1082185 Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 15.Osman IM, Helaly HA, Abdalla M, Shousha MA. Corneal biomechanical changes in eyes with small incision lenticule extraction and laser assisted in situ keratomileusis. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016; 16:123.
10.1186/s12886-016-0304-3 Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 16.Goldich Y, Barkana Y, Morad Y, Hartstein M, Avni I, Zadok D. Can we measure corneal biomechanical changes after collagen cross-linking in eyes with keratoconus? A pilot study. Cornea. 2009; 28:498–502.
10.1097/ICO.0b013e318190734d Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 17.Kling S, Bekesi N, Dorronsoro C, Pascual D, Marcos S. Corneal viscoelastic properties from finite-element analysis of in vivo air-puff deformation. PLoS One. 2014; 9:e104904.
10.1371/journal.pone.0104904 Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 18.Kling S, Remon L, Pérez-Escudero A, Merayo-Lloves J, Marcos S. Corneal biomechanical changes after collagen cross-linking from porcine eye inflation experiments. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51:3961–3968.
10.1167/iovs.09-4536 Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 19.Spiru B, Kling S, Hafezi F, Sekundo W. Biomechanical differences between femtosecond lenticule extraction (FLEx) and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) tested by 2d-extensometry in ex vivo porcine eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017; 58:2591–2595.
10.1167/iovs.16-20211 Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 20.Elsheikh A, Alhasso D, Rama P. Assessment of the epithelium's contribution to corneal biomechanics. Exp Eye Res. 2008; 86:445–451.
10.1016/j.exer.2007.12.002 Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 21.Kling S, Spiru B, Hafezi F, Sekundo W. Biomechanical weakening of different re-treatment options after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). J Refract Surg. 2017; 33:193–198.
10.3928/1081597X-20161221-01 LinkGoogle Scholar - 22.Marshall J. The 2014 Bowman lecture: Bowman's and Bruch's: a tale of two membranes during the laser revolution. Eye(Lond). 2015; 29:46–64. Google Scholar
- 23.Kanellopoulos AJ. Comparison of corneal biomechanics after myopic small-incision lenticule extraction compared to LASIK: an ex vivo study. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018; 12237–245.
10.2147/OPTH.S153509 Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
