Advertisement

SMILE in Special Cases

  • Moones Abdalla
  • Osama Ibrahim

Abstract

As mentioned earlier in this book, SMILE has shown great efficacy and accuracy in normal corneas, having its unique and special advantages over any other refractive techniques, being flapless and less invasive. Furthermore, the ability to tailor and center the procedure as required within the cornea, together with better biomechanical stability [1], made SMILE a reasonable technique to deal with special cases which will be discussed in this chapter.

Keywords

Refractive Error Central Corneal Thickness Correct Distance Visual Acuity Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity Manifest Refraction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Supplementary material

Video 21.1

Visumax-60317-Smile OS-Perdida Succion-MASTER-QuickTime H.264 (MOV 48764 kb)

Video 21.2

Visumax-159409-Smile OD Succion Conjuntiva-MASTER-QuickTime H.264 (MOV 33941 kb)

Video 21.3

Guell-Smile 160-H264 (MOV 32550 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Dan Z, Timothy J, Marine Gobbe1 (2014) Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) history, fundamentals of a new refractive surgery technique and clinical outcomes. Reinstein et al. Eye and Vision 1:3. http://www.eandv.org/content/1/1/3
  2. 2.
    Mastropaqua L et al (2014) Evaluation of corneal biomechanical properties. Bio Med Res Int Article ID 290619, 8 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/290619
  3. 3.
    Reinstein DZ, Roberts C (2006) Biomechanics of corneal refractive surgery. J Refract Surg 22:285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schmack I, Dawson DG, McCarey BE et al (2005) Cohesive tensile strength of human LASIK wounds with histologic, ultrastructural, and clinical correlations. J Refract Surg 21:433–445PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Randleman JB, Dawson DG, Grossniklaus HE et al (2008) Depth-dependent cohesive tensile strength in human donor corneas: implications for refractive surgery. J Refract Surg 24:85–89Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Troutman RC, Gaster RN (1980) Surgical advances and results of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol 90:131–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Azar DT, Chang JH, Han KY (2012) Wound healing after keratorefractive surgery: review of biological and optical considerations. Cornea 31(suppl 1):S9–S19PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Güell JL, Velasco F, Roberts C et al (2005) Corneal flap thickness and topography changes induced by flap creation during laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:15–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pallikaris IG, Kymionis GD, Panagopoulou SI et al (2001) Induced optical aberrations following formation of a laser in situ keratomileusis flap. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:1737–1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Binder PS (2003) Ectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:2419–2429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wei S, Wang Y (2013) Comparison of corneal sensitivity between FS-LASIK and femtosecond lenticule extraction (ReLEx flex) or small-incision lenticule extraction (ReLEx smile) for myopic eyes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 251:1645–1654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sekundo W, Kunert KS, Blum M (2011) Small incision corneal refractive surgery using the small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) procedure for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism: results of a 6 month prospective study. Br J Ophthalmol 95:335–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shah R, Shah S, Sengupta S (2011) Results of small incision lenticule extraction: all-in-one femtosecond laser refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:127–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vestergaard A1, Ivarsen AR, Asp S, Hjortdal JØ (2012) Small-incision lenticule extraction for moderate to high myopia: Predictability, safety, and patient satisfaction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 38(11):2003–2010. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.07.021. Epub 2012 Sep 14
  15. 15.
    Waring GO 3rd (2000) Standard graphs for reporting refractive surgery. J Refract Surg 16:459–466PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reinstein DZ, Waring GO III (2009) Graphic reporting of outcomes of refractive surgery [editorial]. J Refract Surg 25:975–978CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dupps WJ Jr, Kohnen T, Mamalis N, Rosen ES, Koch DD, Obstbaum SA (2011) Standardized graphs and terms for refractive surgery results. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:1–3CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kymionis GD, Kontadakis GA, Kounis GA et al (2009) Simultaneous topography guided PRK followed by corneal collagen cross-linkage for keratoconus. J Refract Surg 25(9):807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kanellopoulos AJ Short and long-term complications of combined topography guided PRK and CKL (the Athens Protocol) in 412 keratoconus eyes (22–7 years follow-up). http://laservision.gr/wp-content/uploads/2012/CKLcompsEposter-AAO11.pdf
  20. 20.
    Kankarriya V, Kymionis G, Kontadakis G, Yoo S (2012) Update on simultaneous topo-guided photorefractive keratoconus immediately followed by corneal collagen cross-linkage for treatment of progressive keratoconus. Int J Keratoconus Ectatic Corneal Diseases 1:185–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Moones Abdalla
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Osama Ibrahim
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Roayah Vision Correction CenterAlexandriaEgypt
  2. 2.Alexandria UniversityAlexandriaEgypt
  3. 3.International FemtoLASIK Centre (IFLC)CairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations