Aim: To identify possible differences of efficacy, safety, predictability, higher-order aberrations and corneal biomechnical parameters after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond lenticule extraction (FLEx).
Methods: A systematic literature retrieval was conducted in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library, up to October, 2015. The included studies were subject to a Meta-analysis. Comparison between SMILE and FLEx was measured as pooled odds ratio (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD). Of 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to analyze data.
Results: A total of seven studies were included. Firstly, there were no differences in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) 20/20 or better (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.69 to 2.69; P=0.37) and logMAR UDVA (WMD, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.01; P=0.17) after SMILE versus FLEx. We found no differences in corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) unchanged (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.46 to 2.11; P=0.97) and logMAR CDVA (WMD, -0.00; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.01; P=0.90) either. Secondly, we found no differences in refraction within ±1.00 D (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.13 to 7.28; P=0.99) and ±0.50 D (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 0.62 to 4.28; P=0.33) of target postoperatively. Thirdly, for higher-order aberrations, we found no differences in the total higher-order aberrations (WMD, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.01; P=0.14), coma (WMD, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.01; P=0.11), spherical (WMD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.03; P=0.60) and trefoil (WMD, -0.00; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.03; P=0.76). Furthermore, for corneal biomechanical parameters, we also found no differences (WMD, 0.08; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.33; P=0.54) after SMILE versus FLEx.
Conclusion: There are no statistically differences in efficacy, safety, predictability, higher-order aberrations and corneal biomechnical parameters postoperative between SMILE and FLEx.
Keywords: aberrations; corneal biomechnical parameters; femtosecond lenticule extraction; small-incision lenticule extraction; visual quality.