SMILE Versus Implantable Collamer Lens Implantation for High Myopia: A Matched Comparative Study
Abstract
PURPOSE:
To compare the safety, efficacy, and patient-reported quality of vision of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and implantable Collamer lens (ICL) implantation for the treatment of high myopia.
METHODS:
A database of 1,634 SMILE (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) and 225 ICL implantation (STAAR Surgical, Monrovia, CA) procedures was screened for patients with a binocular preoperative manifest refraction spherical equivalent between −6.00 and −10.00 diopters (D) and plano target refraction. One-to-one matching was performed by preoperative manifest refraction spherical equivalent, age, and pupil size. All identified patients were then prospectively examined at their next regular postoperative follow-up visit and presented with the standardized and clinically validated Quality of Vision questionnaire to gauge patient-reported postoperative visual quality.
RESULTS:
A total of 80 eyes (40 patients) were eligible for 1:1 matching. Mean postoperative follow-up was 27.8 ± 14.3 months in the SMILE group and 26.6 ± 17.7 months in the ICL group (P = .44). Regarding the percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D of plano target, refractive predictability was better in eyes treated with ICL implantation (90%) than SMILE (72.5%) (P = .045). Mean UDVA was comparable (ICL: −0.09 ± 0.10 logMAR; SMILE: −0.06 ± 0.09 logMAR; P < .09), but the efficacy (1.28 vs 1.05; P < .001) and safety (1.31 ± 0.22 vs 1.10 ± 0.25; P < .001) indices were higher after ICL implantation. ICL implantation induced significantly fewer higher order aberrations (total higher order aberrations: SMILE 0.724 ± 0.174 µm vs ICL 0.436 ± 0.114 µm; P < .01). Regarding subjective quality of vision, patients who had ICL implantation were significantly less bothered by visual disturbances, which were mainly halos after ICL and starbursts and fluctuations of vision after SMILE (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS:
In this refraction-matched comparative study, ICL implantation for high myopia yielded better refractive accuracy, better uncorrected distance visual acuity, fewer higher order aberrations, and better subjective quality of vision than SMILE.
[J Refract Surg. 2020;36(3):150–159.]
- 1.Flitcroft DI, He M, Jonas JB, IMI: defining and classifying myopia: a proposed set of standards for clinical and epidemiologic studies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019; 60(3):M20–M30.
10.1167/iovs.18-25957 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 2.Morgan IG, French AN, Ashby RS, The epidemics of myopia: aetiology and prevention. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2018; 62:134–149.
10.1016/j.preteyeres.2017.09.004 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 3.Alfonso JF, Lisa C, Fernández-Vega L, Almanzar D, Pérez-Vives C, Montés-Micó R. Prevalence of cataract after collagen copolymer phakic intraocular lens implantation for myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015; 41(4):800–805.
10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.07.039 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 4.Moya T, Javaloy J, Montés-Micó R, Beltrán J, Muñoz G, Montalbán R. Implantable collamer lens for myopia: assessment 12 years after implantation. J Refract Surg. 2015; 31(8):548–556.
10.3928/1081597X-20150727-05 Link, Google Scholar - 5.Igarashi A, Shimizu K, Kamiya K. Eight-year follow-up of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation for moderate to high myopia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014; 157(3):532–9.e1.
10.1016/j.ajo.2013.11.006 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 6.Packer M. Meta-analysis and review: effectiveness, safety, and central port design of the intraocular collamer lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016; 10:1059–1077.
10.2147/OPTH.S111620 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 7.Nakamura T, Isogai N, Kojima T, Yoshida Y, Sugiyama Y. Posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism: a retrospective 10-year follow-up study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019; 206:1–10.
10.1016/j.ajo.2019.04.024 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 8.Lapeyre G, Delyfer MN, Touboul D. Retinal detachment after acute posterior vitreous detachment resulting from posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018; 44(1):103–105.
10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.10.045 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 9.Taneri S, Kiessler S, Rost A, Schultz T, Elling M, Dick HB. Atypical endophthalmitis after intraocular collamer lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018; 44(12):1521–1523.
10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.08.010 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 10.Chen X, Guo L, Han T, Wu L, Wang X, Zhou X. Contralateral eye comparison of the long-term visual quality and stability between implantable collamer lens and laser refractive surgery for myopia. Acta Ophthalmol. 2019; 97(3):e471–e478.
10.1111/aos.13846 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 11.Santhiago MR, Giacomin NT, Smadja D, Bechara SJ. Ectasia risk factors in refractive surgery. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016; 10:713–720.
10.2147/OPTH.S51313 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 12.Igarashi A, Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Komatsu M. Visual performance after implantable collamer lens implantation and wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009; 148(1):164–70.e1.
10.1016/j.ajo.2009.02.001 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 13.Schallhorn S, Tanzer D, Sanders DR, Sanders M, Brown M, Kaupp SE. Night driving simulation in a randomized prospective comparison of Visian toric implantable collamer lens and conventional PRK for moderate to high myopic astigmatism. J Refract Surg. 2010; 26(5):321–326.
10.3928/1081597X-20090617-09 Link, Google Scholar - 14.Shin JY, Ahn H, Seo KY, Kim EK, Kim TI. Comparison of higher order aberrations after implantable Collamer Lens implantation and wavefront-guided LASEK in high myopia. J Refract Surg. 2012; 28(2):106–111.
10.3928/1081597X-20111018-02 Link, Google Scholar - 15.Damgaard IB, Reffat M, Hjortdal J. Review of corneal biomechanical properties following LASIK and SMILE for myopia and myopic astigmatism. Open Ophthalmol J. 2018; 12(1):164–174.
10.2174/1874364101812010164 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 16.Wong AHY, Cheung RKY, Kua WN, Shih KC, Chan TCY, Wan KH. Dry eyes after SMILE. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2019; 8(5):397–405.
10.1097/01.APO.0000580136.80338.d0 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 17.Shen Z, Zhu Y, Song X, Yan J, Yao K. Dry eye after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) versus femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for myopia: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016; 11(12):e0168081.
10.1371/journal.pone.0168081 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 18.Damgaard IB, Ang M, Mahmoud AM, Farook M, Roberts CJ, Mehta JS. Functional optical zone and centration following SMILE and LASIK: a prospective, randomized, contralateral eye study. J Refract Surg. 2019; 35(4):230–237.
10.3928/1081597X-20190313-01 Link, Google Scholar - 19.Gyldenkerne A, Ivarsen A, Hjortdal JO. Comparison of corneal shape changes and aberrations induced by FS-LASIK and SMILE for myopia. J Refract Surg. 2015; 31(4):223–229.
10.3928/1081597X-20150303-01 Link, Google Scholar - 20.Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Gobbe M. Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) history, fundamentals of a new refractive surgery technique and clinical outcomes. Eye Vis (Lond). 2014; 1(1):3.
10.1186/s40662-014-0003-1 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 21.Luft N, Siedlecki J, Sekundo W, Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) monovision for presbyopia correction. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2018; 28(3):287–293.
10.5301/ejo.5001069 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 22.McAlinden C, Pesudovs K, Moore JE. The development of an instrument to measure quality of vision: the Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51(11):5537–5545.
10.1167/iovs.10-5341 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 23.Schmelter V, Dirisamer M, Siedlecki J, Determinants of subjective patient-reported quality of vision after small-incision lenticule extraction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019; 45(11):1575–1583.
10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.06.012 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 24.Wang Yin GH, McAlinden C, Pieri E, Giulardi C, Holweck G, Hoffart L. Surgical treatment of presbyopia with central presbyopic keratomileusis: one-year results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016; 42(10):1415–1423.
10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.07.031 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 25.Escandón-García S, Ribeiro FJ, McAlinden C, Queirós A, González-Méijome JM. Through-focus vision performance and light disturbances of 3 new intraocular lenses for presbyopia correction. J Ophthalmol. 2018; 2018:6165493.
10.1155/2018/6165493 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 26.Baumhauer JF. Patient-reported outcomes—are they living up to their potential?N Engl J Med. 2017; 377(1):6–9.
10.1056/NEJMp1702978 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 27.Eom Y, Kim DW, Ryu D, Ring-shaped dysphotopsia associated with posterior chamber phakic implantable collamer lenses with a central hole. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017; 95(3):e170–e178.
10.1111/aos.13248 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
