ArticleBMC ophthalmology2023
Quality of vision after myopic refractive surgeries: SMILE, FS-LASIK, and ICL.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06700460 (A Randomized Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes Following Bilateral Implantation of EVO+ ICL Lenses or Bilateral Wavefront-Optimized LASIK), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers.
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.
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.
A Randomized Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes Following Bilateral Implantation of EVO+ ICL Lenses or Bilateral Wavefront-Optimized LASIK (EVOlve)
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of 0.1% sodium hyaluronate on femtosecond laser scanning during small incision lenticule extraction.International ophthalmology · 2026Trial
- NeuroVision training may improve subjective visual quality in patients with residual refractive error after SMILE: a prospective clinical trial.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Trial
- Factors influencing surgical residual deviation and their impact on higher-order aberrations after SMILE surgery.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Ray-tracing guided versus topography-guided FS-LASIK for myopia: a comparative study of relative peripheral refraction and visual quality.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Beyond 20/20: How Laser Eye Surgery Boosts Quality of Life (SMILE vs. FS-LASIK).Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Comparative clinical outcomes of SMILE, femtosecond LASIK, and transepithelial PRK: a multicenter Iraqi study.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Characterization of Central Corneal Region Using Inflation Test and its Application to Predicting Central Corneal Response Under Intraocular Pressure.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Functional outcome and patient satisfaction 5y after laser vision correction.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Visual outcomes of implantable Collamer lens and laser-assistedInternational journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- The visual quality of patients with myopia and presbyopia after ICL V4c implantation and FS-LASIK using monovision design.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
- Validation and comparison of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv1 in myopic patients requiring corneal refractive surgery in China.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
- Comparison of Persistent Postoperative Discomfort 1 Year after Keratorefractive Lenticule Extraction and Implantable Collamer Lens Implantation.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2025Article
- The impact of corneal epithelial remodeling on visual quality after SMILE and FS-LASIK for high myopia.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Observational
- Characteristics of biological parameters and implantable collamer lens (ICL) size selection in moderate, high, and super-high myopia eyes.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Observational
- Comparative astigmatic accuracy and optical quality of SMILE, FS-LASIK, and TICL in mild-to-moderate myopia with ≥1.00 D astigmatism.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Effective optical zone following small incision lenticule extraction: a review.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Review
- Review
- The effect of femtosecond laser-assistedFrontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Comparison of objective visual quality between SMILE and FS-LASIK in moderate-to-high myopia.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Femtosecond-laser-assisted Small Incision Lenticule Extraction to Treat Refractive Error: A Narrative Review.Middle East African journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo characterize the quality of vision after SMILE, FS-LASIK, and ICL implantation and evaluate the related factors.
methods131 eyes of 131 myopic patients (90 female, 41 male) who underwent refractive surgeries including SMILE (35 patients), FS-LASIK (73 patients), and ICL implantation (23 patients) were analyzed. The Quality of Vision questionnaires were completed 3 months after surgery, and the results were characterized and analyzed with baseline characteristics, treatment parameters, and postoperative refractive outcomes using logistic regression analysis to find out predicted factors.
resultsMean age was 26.5 ± 4.6 years (range: 18 to 39 years) and mean preoperative spherical equivalent was - 4.95 ± 2.04 diopters (D) (range: -1.5 to -13.5). Safety and efficacy index was comparable between different techniques: the safety index was 1.21 ± 0.18, 1.22 ± 0.18, and 1.22 ± 0.16 and the efficacy index were 1.18 ± 0.20, 1.15 ± 0.17, 1.17 ± 0.15 for SMILE, FS-LASIK and ICL respectively. The mean overall QoV score was 13.40 ± 9.11, with mean frequency, severity, and bothersome score of 5.40 ± 3.29, 4.53 ± 3.04, and 3.48 ± 3.18 respectively, and there was no significant difference between different techniques. Overall, the symptom with the highest scores was glare, following fluctuation in vision and halos. Only the scores of halos were significantly different among different techniques (P < 0.000). Using ordinal regression analysis, mesopic pupil size was identified as a risk factor (OR = 1.63, P = 0.037), while postoperative UDVA was a protective factor (OR = 0.036, P = 0.037) for overall QoV scores. Using binary logistic regression analysis, we found that patients with larger mesopic pupil size had an increased risk to experience glare postoperatively; compared to ICL, patients who underwent SMILE or FS-LASIK tended to report fewer halos; patients with better postoperative UDVA were less likely to report blurred vision and focusing difficulty; with larger residual myopic sphere postoperatively, patients experienced focusing difficulties and difficulty judging distance or depth perception more frequently.
conclusionsSMILE, FS-LASIK, and ICL had comparable visual outcomes. Overall, glare, fluctuation in vision, and halos were the most frequently experienced visual symptoms 3 months postoperatively. Patients with ICL implanted tended to report halos more frequently compared with SMILE and FS-LASIK. Mesopic pupil size, postoperative UDVA, and postoperative residual myopic sphere were predicted factors for reported visual symptoms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.