Comparison of objective and subjective visual quality after flapless laser vision correction for mild to moderate myopia: SMILE vs PRK

Ruiyu Zhang,Yu Zhang,Yifei Yuan,Yueguo Chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-022-05937-7
Abstract:Purpose: To investigate the differences in surgical results and the objective and subjective quality of vision (QoV) of patients after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) versus alcohol-assisted photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Methods: Medical records of patients treated with SMILE and PRK were retrospectively examined. Visual quality, biometric parameters, Strehl ratio (SR), and corneal higher-order aberrations (HOAs) within a 6.0 mm area were recorded. The effective optical zone (EOZ) and decentration were measured using a tangential pre-post operation difference map. Subjective QoV and operation satisfaction were evaluated 6 months postoperatively using the Quality of Vision questionnaire. Results: The study comprised 100 eyes treated with SMILE (preoperative mean spherical equivalent (SE), - 4.52 ± 0.81 dioptres (D)) and 69 eyes with PRK (mean SE, - 4.21 ± 1.25 D). Six months postoperatively, the EOZ reduction was significantly larger in the PRK group (P < 0.001). Decentrations were comparable between the groups. Regarding visual symptoms, monocular diplopia was more common following PRK (P = 0.02), and 98 (98.00%) SMILE-treated and 67 (97.10%) PRK-treated patients were satisfied with the QoV. Both groups demonstrated significant increases in total HOAs, coma, and spherical aberration (SA) at 6 months postoperatively compared to preoperatively (P < 0.001); these values were significantly higher in the PRK (P < 0.05) compared to the SMILE group. SR increased significantly only in the PRK group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Although EOZ was more consistent with anticipated treatment and HOAs were fewer in SMILE, high patient-reported satisfaction and good corneal optical quality were achieved in both groups, indicating that both SMILE and alcohol-assisted PRK are excellent options for mild to moderate myopia correction.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?