ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Initial Visual Outcomes Following Keratorefractive Lenticule Extraction (KLEx) Using VisuMax 500 Versus VisuMax 800.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of VISUMAX 800 and VISUMAX 500 Femtosecond Laser Systems for Myopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical outcomes of the new generation VISUMAX 800 platform in small incision lenticule extraction for Myopia in Chinese patients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to compare the initial three-month outcomes of a single-center experience with small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism using the VisuMax 500 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) versus the VisuMax 800 (SMILE Pro®; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). This experience is compared to the US Food and Drug Administration approval studies and published literature. Patients and methods The initial 45 eyes (23 patients) that underwent SMILE with the VisuMax 500 in 2018 were compared with the initial 42 eyes (21 patients) that underwent SMILE Pro® with the VisuMax 800 in 2024. These patients represent the first to be treated with SMILE or SMILE Pro® at a single institution in Draper, Utah. Data from postoperative visits up to three months of follow-up were collected and analyzed. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used in our analysis to account for inter-eye bias. Results By three months, six eyes (13.3%) reported uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/16 or better in the VisuMax 500 group compared to nine eyes (23.1%) in the VisuMax 800 group. All 87 eyes had a UDVA of 20/40 or better at three months. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean postoperative UDVA (logMAR) between platforms (0.02 ± 0.07 vs 0.04 ± 0.15;
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.