Cargando…
Refraction outcomes after suction loss during small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE)
PURPOSE: To evaluate refractive outcomes of two management approaches after suction loss during the small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective and comparative study was conducted at the El-Gowhara Private Eye Center. It included 26 consecutive eye...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5356917/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28331285 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S133188 |
_version_ | 1782515948000903168 |
---|---|
author | Gab-Alla, Amr A |
author_facet | Gab-Alla, Amr A |
author_sort | Gab-Alla, Amr A |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To evaluate refractive outcomes of two management approaches after suction loss during the small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective and comparative study was conducted at the El-Gowhara Private Eye Center. It included 26 consecutive eyes of patients who experienced suction loss during the SMILE technique. Patients were divided into two groups by the technical difficulties in redocking: in group A (12 eyes) suction loss occurred after the posterior lenticular cut and the creation of side-cuts, then suction was reapplied, and the procedure was completed; in group B (14 eyes) suction loss occurred after the posterior lenticular cut and the creation of side-cuts, then the procedure was postponed for 24 hours and completed with the same parameters. Manifest refraction outcomes were measured and compared 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: This study included 26 eyes with suction loss during the SMILE technique: five patients with suction loss in both eyes, nine patients with suction loss in the right eye and seven patients with suction loss in the left eye. The incidence of suction loss in this study was 2.7%. At the postoperative 6-month follow-up time, there were statistically significant differences in refraction outcomes between the two groups, with a hyperopic shift in group A compared with group B. CONCLUSION: A good refraction outcome can be achieved with appropriate management of suction loss during the SMILE technique, and it is recommended to postpone the treatment if this happens. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5356917 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Dove Medical Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53569172017-03-22 Refraction outcomes after suction loss during small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) Gab-Alla, Amr A Clin Ophthalmol Original Research PURPOSE: To evaluate refractive outcomes of two management approaches after suction loss during the small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective and comparative study was conducted at the El-Gowhara Private Eye Center. It included 26 consecutive eyes of patients who experienced suction loss during the SMILE technique. Patients were divided into two groups by the technical difficulties in redocking: in group A (12 eyes) suction loss occurred after the posterior lenticular cut and the creation of side-cuts, then suction was reapplied, and the procedure was completed; in group B (14 eyes) suction loss occurred after the posterior lenticular cut and the creation of side-cuts, then the procedure was postponed for 24 hours and completed with the same parameters. Manifest refraction outcomes were measured and compared 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: This study included 26 eyes with suction loss during the SMILE technique: five patients with suction loss in both eyes, nine patients with suction loss in the right eye and seven patients with suction loss in the left eye. The incidence of suction loss in this study was 2.7%. At the postoperative 6-month follow-up time, there were statistically significant differences in refraction outcomes between the two groups, with a hyperopic shift in group A compared with group B. CONCLUSION: A good refraction outcome can be achieved with appropriate management of suction loss during the SMILE technique, and it is recommended to postpone the treatment if this happens. Dove Medical Press 2017-03-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5356917/ /pubmed/28331285 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S133188 Text en © 2017 Gab-Alla. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Gab-Alla, Amr A Refraction outcomes after suction loss during small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) |
title | Refraction outcomes after suction loss during small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) |
title_full | Refraction outcomes after suction loss during small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) |
title_fullStr | Refraction outcomes after suction loss during small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) |
title_full_unstemmed | Refraction outcomes after suction loss during small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) |
title_short | Refraction outcomes after suction loss during small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) |
title_sort | refraction outcomes after suction loss during small-incision lenticule extraction (smile) |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5356917/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28331285 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S133188 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gaballaamra refractionoutcomesaftersuctionlossduringsmallincisionlenticuleextractionsmile |