Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
Comparison of Refractive Outcomes and Visual Quality Between Topography-Guided LASIK and Small Incision Lenticule Extraction: A 6-Month Prospective Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wei Shanshan, Wang Yue, Fu Caiyun, Zhang Li, Hu Yabin, Dong Yiran, Ma Dongyue, Zhai Changbin, Zheng Yan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the postoperative refractive outcomes and visual quality between topography-guided laser in situ keratomileusis (TG-LASIK) and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) over a 6-month follow-up.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included 100 eyes of 50 patients, 50 eyes received TG-LASIK and 50 underwent SMILE. The outcomes measured included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), spherical equivalent (SEQ), cylinder, contrast sensitivity, and objective visual quality including objective scattering index (OSI), modulation transfer function (MTF) cutoff and Strehl Ratio (SR).
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics differed between groups, with the SMILE group being younger and demonstrating better preoperative UDVA and lower cylinder. At 6 months, 98% of TG-LASIK eyes and 100% of SMILE eyes achieved UDVA of 0.0 logMAR or better, with no significant difference between groups (P = 0.315). A significantly higher percentage of eyes in the TG-LASIK group achieved SEQ within ±0.25 D (58% vs 36%, P = 0.028) and ±0.50 D (88% vs 64%, P = 0.01). Despite treating significantly higher preoperative astigmatism, TG-LASIK achieved comparable correction accuracy to SMILE. Objective visual quality was similar between groups at 3 and 6 months; SMILE showed higher MTF cutoff at 1 month (P = 0.027). TG-LASIK demonstrated significantly higher contrast sensitivity at 6.0 c/d (P < 0.001) and 18.0 c/d (P < 0.001) at 6 months.
CONCLUSION: Both TG-LASIK and SMILE are effective and safe for myopia and astigmatism correction. TG-LASIK demonstrated higher refractive precision and better contrast sensitivity at higher spatial frequencies compared to SMILE.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included 100 eyes of 50 patients, 50 eyes received TG-LASIK and 50 underwent SMILE. The outcomes measured included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), spherical equivalent (SEQ), cylinder, contrast sensitivity, and objective visual quality including objective scattering index (OSI), modulation transfer function (MTF) cutoff and Strehl Ratio (SR).
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics differed between groups, with the SMILE group being younger and demonstrating better preoperative UDVA and lower cylinder. At 6 months, 98% of TG-LASIK eyes and 100% of SMILE eyes achieved UDVA of 0.0 logMAR or better, with no significant difference between groups (P = 0.315). A significantly higher percentage of eyes in the TG-LASIK group achieved SEQ within ±0.25 D (58% vs 36%, P = 0.028) and ±0.50 D (88% vs 64%, P = 0.01). Despite treating significantly higher preoperative astigmatism, TG-LASIK achieved comparable correction accuracy to SMILE. Objective visual quality was similar between groups at 3 and 6 months; SMILE showed higher MTF cutoff at 1 month (P = 0.027). TG-LASIK demonstrated significantly higher contrast sensitivity at 6.0 c/d (P < 0.001) and 18.0 c/d (P < 0.001) at 6 months.
CONCLUSION: Both TG-LASIK and SMILE are effective and safe for myopia and astigmatism correction. TG-LASIK demonstrated higher refractive precision and better contrast sensitivity at higher spatial frequencies compared to SMILE.