Prospective, Randomized, Contralateral Eye Comparison of the Lenticule Decentration Following SMILE: Coaxially Sighted Corneal Light Reflex Versus Tear Film Mark Centration.
Taiwei Chen, Na Yu, Shumin Yuan, Yiming Ye, Xiangtao Hou, Jing Zhuang, Keming Yu
{"title":"Prospective, Randomized, Contralateral Eye Comparison of the Lenticule Decentration Following SMILE: Coaxially Sighted Corneal Light Reflex Versus Tear Film Mark Centration.","authors":"Taiwei Chen, Na Yu, Shumin Yuan, Yiming Ye, Xiangtao Hou, Jing Zhuang, Keming Yu","doi":"10.3928/1081597X-20241230-02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To examine lenticule decentration and visual quality following small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) using either the coaxially sighted corneal light reflex (CSCLR) or the tear film mark (TFM) centration method.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 186 eyes from 93 patients were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, contralateral eye comparison study. Each patient had one eye randomly assigned to the CSCLR group (n = 93) and the contralateral eye to the TFM group (n = 93). Visual outcomes, optical zone decentration, contrast sensitivity, corneal higher order aberrations (HOAs), and the relationships between the magnitude of decentration and induced corneal HOAs were evaluated at 3 months postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The magnitudes of total decentration (CSCLR: 0.23 ± 0.13; TFM: 0.22 ± 0.13; <i>P</i> = .996), as well as horizontal and vertical decentration, were comparable between the two methods. However, in the angle kappa greater than 200 µm subgroup, a statistically significant smaller horizontal decentered displacement was observed in the CSCLR group (0.01 ± 0.16) compared to the TFM group (0.07 ± 0.18) (<i>P</i> = .024). The induced HOAs and contrast sensitivity were comparable between the two methods (all <i>P</i> > .05). Additionally, significant correlations were identified between total decentered displacement and induced HOAs, including RMS HOAs, RMS coma, vertical coma, and RMS spherical aberration, in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both the CSCLR and TFM methods can yield accurate treatment centration and satisfactory visual quality. However, the CSCLR method may contribute to less horizontal decentration in patients with a large preoperative pupil offset. <b>[<i>J Refract Surg</i>. 2025;41(2):e144-e154.]</b>.</p>","PeriodicalId":16951,"journal":{"name":"Journal of refractive surgery","volume":"41 2","pages":"e144-e154"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of refractive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20241230-02","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To examine lenticule decentration and visual quality following small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) using either the coaxially sighted corneal light reflex (CSCLR) or the tear film mark (TFM) centration method.
Methods: A total of 186 eyes from 93 patients were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, contralateral eye comparison study. Each patient had one eye randomly assigned to the CSCLR group (n = 93) and the contralateral eye to the TFM group (n = 93). Visual outcomes, optical zone decentration, contrast sensitivity, corneal higher order aberrations (HOAs), and the relationships between the magnitude of decentration and induced corneal HOAs were evaluated at 3 months postoperatively.
Results: The magnitudes of total decentration (CSCLR: 0.23 ± 0.13; TFM: 0.22 ± 0.13; P = .996), as well as horizontal and vertical decentration, were comparable between the two methods. However, in the angle kappa greater than 200 µm subgroup, a statistically significant smaller horizontal decentered displacement was observed in the CSCLR group (0.01 ± 0.16) compared to the TFM group (0.07 ± 0.18) (P = .024). The induced HOAs and contrast sensitivity were comparable between the two methods (all P > .05). Additionally, significant correlations were identified between total decentered displacement and induced HOAs, including RMS HOAs, RMS coma, vertical coma, and RMS spherical aberration, in both groups.
Conclusions: Both the CSCLR and TFM methods can yield accurate treatment centration and satisfactory visual quality. However, the CSCLR method may contribute to less horizontal decentration in patients with a large preoperative pupil offset. [J Refract Surg. 2025;41(2):e144-e154.].
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Refractive Surgery, the official journal of the International Society of Refractive Surgery, a partner of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, has been a monthly peer-reviewed forum for original research, review, and evaluation of refractive and lens-based surgical procedures for more than 30 years. Practical, clinically valuable articles provide readers with the most up-to-date information regarding advances in the field of refractive surgery. Begin to explore the Journal and all of its great benefits such as:
• Columns including “Translational Science,” “Surgical Techniques,” and “Biomechanics”
• Supplemental videos and materials available for many articles
• Access to current articles, as well as several years of archived content
• Articles posted online just 2 months after acceptance.