ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Assessment of Cap Geometry in Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) Using VisuMax 500 (500 kHz) and VisuMax 800 (2,000 kHz) and Its Association With Clinical Outcomes.
Article in Cureus, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), cap geometry can vary depending on the specific laser platform employed. Because differences in laser delivery speed between the VisuMax 500 (500 kHz) and VisuMax 800 (2,000 kHz) alter the duration of corneal applanation, variations in intraoperative stability and subsequent cap geometry may occur. To address this, this study compared corneal cap geometry between the VisuMax 500 and VisuMax 800 platforms and evaluated its associations with postoperative clinical outcomes.
methodsThis retrospective comparative study included eyes that underwent SMILE using either the VisuMax 500 or 800 system. One month postoperatively, corneal cap thickness was measured at nine horizontal points using anterior-segment optical coherence tomography. Cap accuracy was defined as the difference between achieved and intended thickness. Cap uniformity was quantified using the intra-subject standard deviation (SD) across the central 2.0-mm zone (central uniformity) and the full 6.0-mm zone (total uniformity). Correlations between uniformity and clinical outcomes were analyzed.
resultsNo significant differences were observed in achieved cap thickness, cap accuracy, visual acuity, refraction, or higher-order aberrations between groups. However, the VisuMax 800 group demonstrated significantly superior central uniformity, with a significantly lower intra-subject SD (2.5 ± 1.2 µm) compared with the VisuMax 500 group (3.5 ± 1.6 µm; p = 0.010). In exploratory correlation analyses within the VisuMax 800 group, total uniformity correlated with postoperative sphere, spherical equivalent, and changes in spherical aberration, while central uniformity associated with changes in other higher-order aberrations; no such associations reached significance in the VisuMax 500 group.
conclusionsThe VisuMax 800 provides significantly improved central cap uniformity compared with the VisuMax 500 while maintaining similar cap accuracy and visual outcomes. These exploratory findings indicate that the VisuMax 800 platform is associated with greater central geometric consistency during cap creation, though observed correlations should be considered hypothesis-generating and require future prospective confirmation.
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.