Initial Visual and Refractive Outcomes of Ray-Tracing-Guided LASIK (Wavelight Plus) Versus KLEx (SMILE Pro).

IF 4.2 3区医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Ophthalmology and Therapy Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-08-20 DOI:10.1007/s40123-026-01475-1

Sanjana Molleti, Hanna Pawlowski, Randle M Uyeda, Cole S Elsner, Mina M Sitto, Jonathan C Davis, Calisa G Lee-Choi, Phillip C Hoopes, Majid Moshirfar

{"title":"Initial Visual and Refractive Outcomes of Ray-Tracing-Guided LASIK (Wavelight Plus) Versus KLEx (SMILE Pro).","authors":"Sanjana Molleti, Hanna Pawlowski, Randle M Uyeda, Cole S Elsner, Mina M Sitto, Jonathan C Davis, Calisa G Lee-Choi, Phillip C Hoopes, Majid Moshirfar","doi":"10.1007/s40123-026-01475-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This study evaluates visual and refractive outcomes of our initial experience using ray-tracing-guided Wavelight Plus (WLP) LASIK and SMILE Pro KLEx carried out by one surgeon at a single center.Methods: A retrospective, non-randomized study was conducted at one refractive surgery center. Patients undergoing WLP or SMILE Pro with at least 1 month of postoperative follow-up were included. Outcomes were assessed at 1 and 3 months and included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), safety and efficacy indices, and vector analysis of astigmatism. Additionally, a comparison with wavefront-optimized (WFO) LASIK, an established procedure with a well-refined nomogram at the study center, was provided as an internal benchmark.Results: A total of 160 eyes from 93 patients were analyzed, including 50 eyes treated with WLP, 55 with SMILE Pro, and 55 with WFO. WLP demonstrated significantly better UDVA than SMILE Pro at both 1 month (p < 0.001) and 3 months (p = 0.033) and was more likely to achieve a UDVA of 20/20. Residual astigmatism was significantly lower in the WLP group than in both the WFO and SMILE Pro groups at 1 and 3 months (all p < 0.001). Vector analysis showed a correction index of 1.13 for SMILE Pro, 1.11 for WFO, and 1.08 for WLP at 3 months.Conclusions: In our initial experience with the WLP and SMILE Pro platforms, WLP achieved better UDVA and more precise astigmatic correction compared with SMILE Pro. Additionally, WLP, without the use of a nomogram, had comparable safety and efficacy outcomes to WFO. Based on our initial experience at one center, astigmatic correction appears to be a limiting factor for KLEx platforms in achieving outcomes similar to modern LASIK platforms.","PeriodicalId":19623,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"3401-3419"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13546198/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-026-01475-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study evaluates visual and refractive outcomes of our initial experience using ray-tracing-guided Wavelight Plus (WLP) LASIK and SMILE Pro KLEx carried out by one surgeon at a single center.

Methods: A retrospective, non-randomized study was conducted at one refractive surgery center. Patients undergoing WLP or SMILE Pro with at least 1 month of postoperative follow-up were included. Outcomes were assessed at 1 and 3 months and included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), safety and efficacy indices, and vector analysis of astigmatism. Additionally, a comparison with wavefront-optimized (WFO) LASIK, an established procedure with a well-refined nomogram at the study center, was provided as an internal benchmark.

Results: A total of 160 eyes from 93 patients were analyzed, including 50 eyes treated with WLP, 55 with SMILE Pro, and 55 with WFO. WLP demonstrated significantly better UDVA than SMILE Pro at both 1 month (p < 0.001) and 3 months (p = 0.033) and was more likely to achieve a UDVA of 20/20. Residual astigmatism was significantly lower in the WLP group than in both the WFO and SMILE Pro groups at 1 and 3 months (all p < 0.001). Vector analysis showed a correction index of 1.13 for SMILE Pro, 1.11 for WFO, and 1.08 for WLP at 3 months.

Conclusions: In our initial experience with the WLP and SMILE Pro platforms, WLP achieved better UDVA and more precise astigmatic correction compared with SMILE Pro. Additionally, WLP, without the use of a nomogram, had comparable safety and efficacy outcomes to WFO. Based on our initial experience at one center, astigmatic correction appears to be a limiting factor for KLEx platforms in achieving outcomes similar to modern LASIK platforms.

查看原文本刊更多论文

光线跟踪引导LASIK （wavight Plus）与KLEx （SMILE Pro）的初始视力和屈光结果。

简介：本研究评估了我们使用光线跟踪引导的wavight Plus (WLP) LASIK和SMILE Pro KLEx的初步经验，由一名外科医生在单一中心进行。方法：在一家屈光手术中心进行回顾性、非随机研究。患者接受WLP或SMILE Pro术后随访至少1个月。在1个月和3个月时评估结果，包括未矫正距离视力（UDVA）、矫正距离视力（CDVA）、安全性和有效性指标以及散光矢量分析。此外，与波前优化（WFO） LASIK（一种在研究中心建立的具有良好nomogram的程序）进行比较，作为内部基准。结果：共分析93例患者160只眼，其中WLP组50只眼，SMILE Pro组55只眼，WFO组55只眼。结论：在我们使用WLP和SMILE Pro平台的初步经验中，与SMILE Pro相比，WLP获得了更好的UDVA和更精确的像散校正。此外，在不使用nomogram的情况下，WLP与WFO具有相当的安全性和有效性。根据我们在一个中心的初步经验，散光校正似乎是KLEx平台实现与现代LASIK平台相似的结果的限制因素。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Ophthalmology and Therapy OPHTHALMOLOGY-

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

3.00%

发文量

157

审稿时长

6 weeks

期刊介绍： Aims and Scope Ophthalmology and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed (single-blind), and rapid publication journal. The scope of the journal is broad and will consider all scientifically sound research from preclinical, clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the use of ophthalmological therapies, devices, and surgical techniques. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports/series, trial protocols and short communications such as commentaries and editorials. Ophthalmology and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of quality research, which may be considered of insufficient interest by other journals. Rapid Publication The journal’s publication timelines aim for a rapid peer review of 2 weeks. If an article is accepted it will be published 3–4 weeks from acceptance. The rapid timelines are achieved through the combination of a dedicated in-house editorial team, who manage article workflow, and an extensive Editorial and Advisory Board who assist with peer review. This allows the journal to support the rapid dissemination of research, whilst still providing robust peer review. Combined with the journal’s open access model this allows for the rapid, efficient communication of the latest research and reviews, fostering the advancement of ophthalmic therapies. Open Access All articles published by Ophthalmology and Therapy are open access. Personal Service The journal’s dedicated in-house editorial team offer a personal “concierge service” meaning authors will always have an editorial contact able to update them on the status of their manuscript. The editorial team check all manuscripts to ensure that articles conform to the most recent COPE, GPP and ICMJE publishing guidelines. This supports the publication of ethically sound and transparent research. Digital Features and Plain Language Summaries Ophthalmology and Therapy offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by key summary points, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article. The journal also provides the option to include various types of digital features including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations. All additional features are peer reviewed to the same high standard as the article itself. If you consider that your paper would benefit from the inclusion of a digital feature, please let us know. Our editorial team are able to create high-quality slide decks and infographics in-house, and video abstracts through our partner Research Square, and would be happy to assist in any way we can. For further information about digital features, please contact the journal editor (see ‘Contact the Journal’ for email address), and see the ‘Guidelines for digital features and plain language summaries’ document under ‘Submission guidelines’. For examples of digital features please visit our showcase page https://springerhealthcare.com/expertise/publishing-digital-features/ Publication Fees Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be required to pay the mandatory Rapid Service Fee of €5250/$6000/£4300. The journal will consider fee discounts and waivers for developing countries and this is decided on a case by case basis. Peer Review Process Upon submission, manuscripts are assessed by the editorial team to ensure they fit within the aims and scope of the journal and are also checked for plagiarism. All suitable submissions are then subject to a comprehensive single-blind peer review. Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise and publication history in the subject area. The journal has an extensive pool of editorial and advisory board members who have been selected to assist with peer review based on the afore-mentioned criteria. At least two extensive reviews are required to make the editorial decision, with the exception of some article types such as Commentaries, Editorials, and Letters which are generally reviewed by one member of the Editorial Board. Where reviewer recommendations are conflicted, the editorial board will be contacted for further advice and a presiding decision. Manuscripts are then either accepted, rejected or authors are required to make major or minor revisions (both reviewer comments and editorial comments may need to be addressed). Once a revised manuscript is re-submitted, it is assessed along with the responses to reviewer comments and if it has been adequately revised it will be accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts are then copyedited and typeset by the production team before online publication. Appeals against decisions following peer review are considered on a case-by-case basis and should be sent to the journal editor. Preprints We encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors’ or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration in our journals. Authors should disclose details of preprint posting during the submission process or at any other point during consideration in one of our journals. Once the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website. Please follow the link for further information on preprint sharing: https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/journal-author-helpdesk/submission/1302#c16721550 Copyright Ophthalmology and Therapy''s content is published open access under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, which allows users to read, copy, distribute, and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited. The author assigns the exclusive right to any commercial use of the article to Springer. For more information about the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, click here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0. Contact For more information about the journal, including pre-submission enquiries, please contact christopher.vautrinot@springer.com.