Abstract
Objective
To evaluate possible differences in visual outcome and optical quality when small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) versus implantable collamer lens (ICL) is used to correct myopia.
Methods
PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to August 2021 to identify relevant studies. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Primary outcomes were postoperative efficacy, safety, and predictability at the end of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were changes in modulation transfer function cutoff frequency (MTF cut−off), objective scatter index (OSI) values, total higher-order aberrations (HOAs), spherical aberrations, and coma aberrations.
Results
Seven studies with a total of 1296 eyes (SMILE: 731 eyes; TECXL: 565 eyes) were included. The ICL group had a better MTF cut−off (P = 0.007) and less change in the proportion of HOAs (P < 0.001), spherical aberrations (P = 0.009), and coma (P = 0.006) than the SMILE group. For the other outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences.
Conclusions
SMILE and ICL implantation are comparable in efficacy, safety, and predictability for correcting myopia. Larger studies with longer follow-up times are warranted to provide a better understanding of the benefits of SMILE and ICL implantation.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
