Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34340669›Full record

ArticleBMC ophthalmology2021

Comparison of the optical quality after SMILE and FS-LASIK for high myopia by OQAS and iTrace analyzer: a one-year retrospective study.

Yewei Yin, Ying Lu, Aiqun Xiang, Yanyan Fu, Yang Zhao, Yuanjun Li, Tu Hu, Kaixuan Du, Shengfa Hu, Qiuman Fu and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yewei YinEye Center of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Ying LuEye Center of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Aiqun XiangEye Center of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Yanyan FuEye Center of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Yang ZhaoEye Center of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Yuanjun LiEye Center of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Tu HuEye Center of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Kaixuan DuEye Center of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Shengfa HuEye Center of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Qiuman FuEye Center of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Xiaoying WuEye Center of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Dan WenEye Center of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. wendan@csu.edu.cn.
Central South University · CNXiangya Hospital Central South University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compare the correction effect and optical quality after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for high myopia.

methods51 high myopia eyes after SMILE and 49 high myopia eyes after FS-LASIK were enrolled and divided into two groups retrospectively. The OQAS and iTrace analyzer were used for optical quality inspection. Between the two groups the spherical equivalent (SE), astigmatism, uncorrected distant visual acuity (UDVA), strehl ratio (SR), modulation transfer function cutoff frequency (MTF cutoff), objective scatter index (OSI) and wavefront aberrations were analyzed and compared before surgery and at 1, 6 and 12 months after surgery.

resultsAfter the operation: (1) SE and astigmatism declined and UDVA increased significantly in both groups, and UDVA was better after SMILE than FS-LASIK. (2) SR and MTF cutoff reduced and OSI increased significantly after SMILE and FS-LASIK. SR and MTF cutoff were significantly higher after SMILE than FS-LASIK. OSI was significantly lower after SMILE than FS-LASIK. (3) The total wavefront aberration, total low-order wavefront aberration, defocus and astigmatism aberration as well as trefoil aberration reduced significantly in both groups. The total high-order wavefront aberration increased significantly after FS-LASIK. The spherical and coma aberration increased significantly in both groups. The total high-order wavefront aberration and coma aberration at 1 month were higher after FS-LASIK than SMILE.

conclusionThe optical quality descended after SMILE and FS-LASIK. SMILE was superior to FS-LASIK at the correction effect and optical quality for high myopia. The combination of OQAS and iTrace analyzer is a valuable complementary measurement in evaluating the optical quality after the refractive surgery.

trial registrationThis is a retrospective study. This research was approved by the ethics committee of Xiangya Hospital and the IRB approval number is 201612074.

Indexed as

AstigmatismCorneal Wavefront AberrationKeratomileusis, Laser In SituMyopiaCorneal StromaHumansLasers, ExcimerProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesFS-LASIKHigh myopiaiTraceOptical qualityOQASSMILE

Identifiers

PMID34340669
PMCPMC8330115
OpenAlexW3192680511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.