ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Comparison of corneal biomechanics after SMILE versus LASEK in moderate to high myopia with relatively thin corneas: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the 2-year refractive outcomes and corneal biomechanical changes after Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) versus Laser-Assisted Subepithelial Keratectomy (LASEK) in patients with moderate to high myopia (spherical equivalent [SE]: -2.00 to -6.75 D) and relatively thin corneas (central corneal thickness [CCT] ≤ 530 μm).
methodsIn this retrospective, comparative, non-randomized study, 47 patients (47 eyes) were included, assigned to either SMILE (n = 24) or LASEK (n = 23). Corneal biomechanical parameters (Corvis ST II [CST]: biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure [bIOP], stiffness parameter at first applanation [SP-A1], integrated inverse radius [IntInv-Rad], deformation amplitude ratio at 2.0 mm [DAR 2.0 mm], Ambrosio relational thickness horizontal [ARTh]) and refractive outcomes (safety and efficacy indices) were evaluated preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. Intergroup comparisons of changes (Δ) in these parameters and correlation analyses with potential predictors were analyzed.
resultsThe safety indices were comparable between the two groups (SMILE: 0.90 ± 0.11 vs. LASEK: 0.87 ± 0.09; P = 0.24), but the efficacy index was statistically higher in the LASEK group (1.09 ± 0.18 vs. 0.98 ± 0.13; P = 0.02), although the clinical relevance of this difference is likely limited as both values are close to the ideal of 1.0. Preoperatively, the LASEK group had thinner CCT (492.78 ± 18.92 vs. 509.71 ± 9.47 μm; P < 0.01), lower cylinder (-0.80 ± 0.86 vs. -1.28 ± 0.78 D; P = 0.05), and lower SE (-3.73 ± 1.39 vs. -4.71 ± 1.13 D; P = 0.01). At 2 years, compared with SMILE, LASEK resulted in a significantly smaller reduction in ΔSP-A1 (-11.31 ± 23.72 vs. -28.99 ± 21.37; P = 0.01) and smaller increases in ΔIntInv-Rad (+ 0.98 ± 1.48 vs. +1.75 ± 0.89; P = 0.03) than SMILE. Postoperative CCT was positively correlated with ΔSP-A1 (SMILE: r = 0.50, P = 0.01; LASEK: r = 0.60, P < 0.01) and negatively with ΔIntInv-Rad (SMILE: r=-0.51, P = 0.01; LASEK: r=-0.45, P = 0.03).
conclusionsThis study suggests that in patients with moderate to high myopia and relatively thin corneas, LASEK was associated with smaller alterations in certain corneal biomechanical parameters at 2 years postoperatively compared to SMILE, as indicated by better preservation of corneal stiffness (SP-A1) and less change in overall biomechanical response (IntInv-Rad). Postoperative CCT is a significant predictor of these biomechanical alterations. Both procedures demonstrated excellent and comparable safety profiles, with all patients achieving the primary clinical goal of refractive surgery.
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.