ArticlePloS one2025
A 6-month longitudinal and comparative study of corneal biomechanical properties after SMILE with two different optical zone sizes.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of SMILE on intraocular pressure and corneal biomechanics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo precisely evaluate the independent influence of two different optical zone (OZ) sizes (6.3 mm vs. 6.5 mm) on corneal biomechanical properties within 6 months after Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) using multivariable-adjusted statistical models.
methodsThis retrospective study included myopic patients who underwent SMILE between 2022 and 2024. Patients were grouped into two groups based on the planned OZ: Group A (6.3 mm, 44 eyes) and Group B (6.5 mm, 54 eyes). Corneal biomechanical parameters were measured using the Corvis ST preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Linear Mixed Models (LMM) were used to assess the independent effect of OZ size, adjusting for key baseline covariates and accounting for inter-eye correlation by including a random intercept for patient identifier (ID).
resultsA total of 98 eyes were analyzed. Baseline analysis revealed a significant imbalance between the groups, with Group A (6.3 mm OZ) having higher myopia and a greater corneal stromal ablation depth (both P < 0.001). The central finding from the LMM analysis was that, after adjusting for all covariates, optical zone size (6.3 mm vs. 6.5 mm) had no independent, statistically significant effect on 11 of the 12 biomechanical parameters (all P > 0.05), with the sole exception of Ambrosio Relational Thickness Horizontal (ARTH) (P = 0.012). In contrast, several preoperative covariates, particularly corneal stromal ablation depth and preoperative central corneal thickness, were identified as significant predictors of multiple postoperative biomechanical parameters.
conclusionThe independent effect of a 0.2 mm difference in optical zone size on corneal biomechanical properties after SMILE appears to be limited. After comprehensive statistical adjustment, the results suggest that preoperative anatomical and surgical parameters, especially corneal stromal ablation depth, are the primary drivers of the postoperative biomechanical response, rather than the minor difference in OZ size itself. This study underscores the importance of confounder adjustment in refractive surgery research and suggests that maximizing the residual stromal bed may be more critical for maintaining corneal biomechanical integrity than fine-tuning the optical zone diameter.
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.