Journal of Refractive Surgery

Biomechanics 

Biomechanical Properties of Human Cornea Tested by Two-Dimensional Extensiometry Ex Vivo in Fellow Eyes: Femtosecond Laser–Assisted LASIK Versus SMILE

Bogdan Spiru, MD; Sabine Kling, PhD; Farhad Hafezi, MD, PhD; Walter Sekundo, MD, PhD

Abstract

Click here to read a Letter to the Editor about this article.

PURPOSE:

To investigate the biomechanical properties of the ex vivo human cornea after flap-based versus cap-based laser refractive surgery in the same donor.

METHODS:

In this experimental study, 11 pairs of human corneas unsuitable for transplantation were equally divided into two groups. Corneas from the right eye were treated with femtosecond laser–assisted LASIK (FSLASIK) and corneas from the left eye with small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Pachymetry was measured in each eye directly before laser refractive surgery. All corneas were subjected to a refractive correction of −10.00 diopters (D) sphere and −0.75 D cylinder at 0° with a 7-mm zone, using either a 110-μm flap (FS-LASIK) or 130-μm cap (SMILE). For two-dimensional biomechanical measurements, corneoscleral buttons underwent two testing cycles (preconditioning stress-strain curve from 0.03 to 9.0 N and stress-relaxation at 9.0 N during 120 sec) to analyze the elastic and viscoelastic material properties. The effective elastic modulus was calculated. Statistical analysis was performed with a confidence interval of 95%.

RESULTS:

In stress-strain measurements, the effective elastic modulus was 1.47 times higher (P = .003) after SMILE (median = 8.22 [interquartile range = 4.76] MPa) compared to FS-LASIK (median = 5.59 [inter-quartile range = 2.77] MPa). The effect size was large (r = 0.83). No significant differences (P = .658) were observed among stress-relaxation measurements, with a mean remaining stress of 181 ± 31 kPa after SMILE and 177 ± 26 kPa after FS-LASIK after relaxation.

CONCLUSIONS:

Compared to a flap-based procedure such as FS-LASIK, the SMILE technique can be considered superior in terms of biomechanical stability, when measured experimentally in ex vivo human fellow eye corneas.

[J Refract Surg. 2018;34(6):419–423.]

Abstract

Click here to read a Letter to the Editor about this article.

PURPOSE:

To investigate the biomechanical properties of the ex vivo human cornea after flap-based versus cap-based laser refractive surgery in the same donor.

METHODS:

In this experimental study, 11 pairs of human corneas unsuitable for transplantation were equally divided into two groups. Corneas from the right eye were treated with femtosecond laser–assisted LASIK (FSLASIK) and corneas from the left eye with small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Pachymetry was measured in each eye directly before laser refractive surgery. All corneas were subjected to a refractive correction of −10.00 diopters (D) sphere and −0.75 D cylinder at 0° with a 7-mm zone, using either a 110-μm flap (FS-LASIK) or 130-μm cap (SMILE). For two-dimensional biomechanical measurements, corneoscleral buttons underwent two testing cycles (preconditioning stress-strain curve from 0.03 to 9.0 N and stress-relaxation at 9.0 N during 120 sec) to analyze the elastic and viscoelastic material properties. The effective elastic modulus was calculated. Statistical analysis was performed with a confidence interval of 95%.

RESULTS:

In stress-strain measurements, the effective elastic modulus was 1.47 times higher (P = .003) after SMILE (median = 8.22 [interquartile range = 4.76] MPa) compared to FS-LASIK (median = 5.59 [inter-quartile range = 2.77] MPa). The effect size was large (r = 0.83). No significant differences (P = .658) were observed among stress-relaxation measurements, with a mean remaining stress of 181 ± 31 kPa after SMILE and 177 ± 26 kPa after FS-LASIK after relaxation.

CONCLUSIONS:

Compared to a flap-based procedure such as FS-LASIK, the SMILE technique can be considered superior in terms of biomechanical stability, when measured experimentally in ex vivo human fellow eye corneas.

[J Refract Surg. 2018;34(6):419–423.]

In 2008 Sekundo et al. introduced the minimally invasive small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), which was published in 2011.1 Unlike in femtosecond laser–assisted LASIK (FS-LASIK), SMILE does not require a flap and the lenticule is extracted via a 2- to 3-mm incision, leaving the remaining anterior stroma and Bowman's layer untouched. SMILE offers potential advantages such as more postoperative comfort and patient satisfaction,2 less postoperative discomfort due to faster corneal healing,3,4 less neurotrophic keratopathy, and a presumed better preservation of biomechanical stability.4–6

Corneal biomechanical properties determine the development of keratectasia. The success of corneal refractive surgery depends on both biological and biomechanical factors. Hence, the better we understand the biomechanical response of corneal tissue after surgery, the more precisely we may predict surgical outcomes and manage postoperative complications. Because SMILE supposedly is superior in preserving corneal integrity when compared to flap-based procedures such as FS-LASIK, it is reasonable to assume that SMILE may also show more biomechanical stability. Reinstein et al.7 elaborated on this hypothesis with a mathematical model estimating the relative differences in postoperative stromal tensile strength following photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), FS-LASIK, and SMILE procedures. Sinha Roy et al.8 suggested an increase in residual stromal stress after FS-LASIK, but not after SMILE procedures. Only a few experimental studies have analyzed differences in the in vivo corneal deformation response following an air-puff,9–15 but did not find a significant difference between FS-LASIK and SMILE procedures, some of which have difficulties in even detecting a biomechanical difference after cross-linking.16 It should be noted that the corneal deformation response following an air-puff is sensitive to changes in corneal thickness17 and intraocular pressure (IOP), which might have masked the subtle differences between FS-LASIK and SMILE in this set-up. In addition, an air-puff directed at the surface of the cornea does not truly represent the force of the IOP that comes from within the eye, neither in terms of the force direction nor under consideration of the cornea's shape being convex on the surface but concave toward the anterior chamber.

Despite the fact that several systems (eg, air-puff tonometers and Brillouin microscopy) have been developed to assess the corneal biomechanical properties in vivo, the most accurate tests are destructive and can only be performed in ex vivo tissue. One-dimensional stress-strain testing is the gold standard technique for ex vivo testing. However, the stress distribution is not representative of the natural stress situation in the eye implied by the IOP. Kling et al.18 developed a set-up for two-dimensional stress-strain testing to overcome this issue. An indenter is used to apply the load similar to the IOP and, simultaneously, the spherical deformation of the corneal sample is recorded. This set-up allows elastic and viscoelastic soft tissue characterization and was previously applied to determine the experimental difference between flap-based and cap-based cornea refractive procedures19 in porcine corneas. In the current study, we used the same setting to experimentally determine the biomechanical differences between FSLASIK and SMILE, to our knowledge for the first time, in human ex vivo fellow eyes.

Materials and Methods

Specimen

Eleven pairs of human corneas (22 eyes) were obtained from various corneal banks. Due to positive serology of the donor, the corneas were not eligible for transplantation but were approved for research use. The corneas ware equally divided into two groups (11 eyes in each): corneas from the right eye were treated with FS-LASIK and corneas from the left eye with SMILE. Ultrasound pachymetry (Pocket II; Quantel Medical, Cournon d'Auvergne Cedex, France) was performed in each cornea directly before laser refractive surgery. All corneas were treated on the same day.

Refractive Procedure

The corneas were mounted onto an artificial anterior chamber (Katena Products Inc., Denville, NJ) and the IOP was adjusted to approximately 20 mm Hg. For further standardization of the refractive procedure, and given that the epithelium hardly contributes to the mechanical corneal properties,20 the epithelium was scraped off all corneas prior to the laser treatment, ensuring that differences in epithelial transparency did not interfere with the laser beam. The M size contact glass (treatment applanation pack) was used to applanate the cornea by the VisuMax 500-kHz femtosecond laser (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) with the following energy settings: 130 nJ and 4.5 μm track/spot distance. The minimal lenticule thickness was set to 15 μm. All corneas were subjected to a refractive correction of −10.00 diopters (D) sphere and −0.75 D cylinder at 0° with a 7-mm zone using either a 110-μm flap (FSLASIK) or 130-μm cap (SMILE). At the end of the LASIK procedure, the flap was sealed using fibrin glue (Tisseel 2 mL; Baxter, Deerfield, IL). Sealing the flap had two functions: to imitate epithelialization and to prevent the stroma from swelling in the time until the biomechanical measurement was performed. We successfully used the same technique previously in our study on porcine corneas.19,21 Directly after the surgical intervention, the corneoscleral buttons were preserved in Optisol GS (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) until the biomechanical measurements were performed.

Biomechanical Characterization

Two-dimensional biomechanical characterization was performed on entire corneoscleral buttons, as described earlier.19,21 Briefly, buttons were mounted circumferentially (10-mm diameter) and a spherical indenter was used to apply the three-dimensional test force from the posterior surface, similar to the IOP (Figure 1). A commercial stress-strain extensometer/indenter (Z0.5; Zwick GmbH & Co., Ulm, Germany) was used for the experiments. Each corneal specimen underwent two cycles of stress-strain preconditioning between 0.03 and 9.0 N (571 kPa stress), corresponding to an IOP between 15 and 4,100 mm Hg, followed by a stress-relaxation test at 9.0 N for 120 sec. The vertical extension was recorded as a function of stress and converted into tensile strain according to the geometrical context (see our previous studies19,21 for detailed equations):

σ=F2π⋅R⋅th
εtensile=Δ2+R22ΔR⋅sin-1(2ΔRΔ2+R2)-1
where σ is stress, ∊tensile is tensile strain, R is the radius of the customized holder, and Δ is the vertical indentation. Stress was computed from the applied test force and the individual central corneal pachymetry of each cornea (ie, homogeneous material properties were assumed and preoperative central corneal thickness was used as a scaling factor to better compare measurements between corneas of different individuals).

Schematic of the measurement set-up used for corneal biomechanical characterization.

Figure 1.

Schematic of the measurement set-up used for corneal biomechanical characterization.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed in SPSS software (version 23.0; IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY). Normality was tested with the Shapiro–Wilk test. Subsequently, either a two-tailed paired test or a two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied to detect significant differences between treatment groups. Confidence intervals of 95% were applied.

Results

Stress-Strain Measurements

According to the Shapiro–Wilk test (P = .008), stress-strain data were not normally distributed. Hence, non-parametric statistical analysis was performed using the two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Figure 2 presents the stress-strain relationship and the elastic modulus as a function of strain for the different treatment groups. The effective elastic modulus between 0.5% and 2% of strain (Figures 23) was 1.47 times higher (P = .003) after SMILE at 8.22 MPa (IQR = 4.76) than after LASIK at 5.59 MPa (IQR = 2.77) refractive correction. The Cohen effect size was large (r = 0.83).

(A) Stress and (B) elastic modulus as a function of strain for corneas treated with small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser–assisted LASIK.

Figure 2.

(A) Stress and (B) elastic modulus as a function of strain for corneas treated with small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser–assisted LASIK.

Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) is 1.47 times stiffer than femtosecond laser–assisted LASIK.

Figure 3.

Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) is 1.47 times stiffer than femtosecond laser–assisted LASIK.

Stress-Relaxation Measurements

According to the Shapiro–Wilk test (P = .242), stress-strain data were normally distributed. Hence, parametric statistical analysis was performed using the two-tailed paired t test. No significant differences (P =.658) were observed between treatment groups, with a mean remaining stress of 181 ± 31 kPa after SMILE and 177 ± 26 kPa after LASIK after relaxation. The paired samples did show a significant correlation of 0.647 (P = .031).

Discussion

With our previous studies,19,21 we could demonstrate, as widely presumed in the refractive community, that the flap-based procedure weakens the cornea more than the cap-based procedure when tested on porcine corneas. In human corneas, we found even greater differences, with corneas after SMILE being 1.47 times stronger compared to corneas after FS-LASIK. The most plausible explanation is the presence of the membrane-like condensed structure of the anterior stroma in human corneas (Bowman's layer), which is virtually absent in porcine corneas. The creation of a flap severs both the Bowman's layer and the anterior, biomechanically stronger, stroma.22

In 2014, a finite element method study8 showed that the mechanical stress distribution after SMILE remains similar to an untreated control cornea of the same geometry, whereas after LASIK the stress in the flap is reduced and the stress in the residual stromal bed is increased, respectively. This suggests that after flap-based procedures such as FS-LASIK, the flap does not contribute to support the IOP any longer and, therefore, the mechanical weakening increases with the flap thickness. In contrast, according to the finite element method simulations, after SMILE the anterior part of the cap is still supporting the remaining cornea and able to take up mechanical stress. Therefore, we may assume that with cap-based surgery the mechanical weakening only depends on the thickness of the lenticule, and not on the thickness of the cap. Our results are in line with these assumptions, showing a stronger mechanical weakening after FS-LASIK than SMILE, given that in FS-LASIK the effective stromal thickness that provides mechanical resistance is reduced.

Reinstein et al.7 calculated the remaining tensile strength of the postoperative human cornea using a mathematical model. They estimated 54% remaining tensile strength after LASIK as compared with 75% after SMILE, assuming a 110-μm flap, a 130-μm cap, and 110-μm of stromal tissue removal. Our study echoes these theoretical results with the differences even more prominent than assumed (Figure 3) when measured ex vivo in human corneas. This difference can be attributed to the fact that we attempted a larger correction compared to Reinstein et al.'s model7 (−10.35 vs −7.75 D) because post-mortem corneas are swollen and the amount of tissue effectively removed in our experiment was definitely less than in living tissue. A recent ex vivo study23 on human eyes reported a similar corneal strength reduction after SMILE and LASIK in higher myopic corrections (−8.00 D) and a higher corneal strength reduction after SMILE in lower myopic corrections (−3.00 D). However, it is important to note that the refractive correction was performed over an optical zone of 6.5 mm, whereas the mechanical test was performed only in the central 3.5 × 3.5 mm area by pulling the corneal buttons laterally, as opposed to the posterior force applied in the current study. This implies that flap and cap were clamped to the stromal bed, which is not comparable to the condition in the patient. In this case, the mechanical difference is expected to be related only to percentage of ablated tissue and not to flap or cap technique.

In our study, despite different post-mortem times and donor ages, a paired-eye study eliminates this sample bias because each treatment group had an equal number of corneas with identical characteristics of age, degree of degeneration, and possible underlying pathologies, finally reducing the source of error and increasing the statistical power.

A limitation for the current study could be the assumption of homogeneous material properties and uniform corneal thickness, which restricted our analysis to the overall tissue weakening but did not allow localized assessment of corneal stiffness. Also, the fibrin-glued flap has a different stability compared to an in vivo epithelialized flap with some degree of scar formation along the flap border. Due to corneal swelling, corneal strain at low testing forces may not have been equally distributed along the corneal tissue. Because both conditions in this study are equally affected, no bias is expected from this factor.

Our ex vivo results on human paired-eye corneas confirm SMILE to better preserve the corneal stress resistance, supporting the mathematical model,7 finite element method,9 and our ex vivo experiments on non-human corneas published previously.19,21 Further prospective non-inferiority clinical studies matched by refraction, treatment zone, age, and sex may be envisaged once more sensitive in vivo techniques for the measurement of the corneal biomechanics become available.

References

  1. Sekundo W, Kunert KS, Blum M, Small incision corneal refractive surgery using the small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) procedure for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism: results of a 6 month prospective study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95:335–339. doi:10.1136/bjo.2009.174284 [CrossRef]
  2. Ganesh S, Brar S, Pawar A. Matched population comparison of visual outcomes and patient satisfaction between 3 modalities for the correction of low to moderate myopic astigmatism. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:1253–1263. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S127101 [CrossRef]
  3. Xia L, Zhang J, Wu J, Yu K. Comparison of corneal biological healing after femtosecond LASIK and small incision lenticule extraction procedure. Curr Eye Res. 2016;41:1202–1208. doi:10.3109/02713683.2015.1107590 [CrossRef]
  4. Shetty R, Francis M, Shroff R, et al. Corneal biomechanical changes and tissue remodeling after SMILE and LASIK. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017;58:5703–5712. doi:10.1167/iovs.17-22864 [CrossRef]
  5. Seven I, Vahdati A, Pedersen IB, et al. Contralateral eye comparison of SMILE and flap-based corneal refractive surgery: computational analysis of biomechanical impact. J Refract Surg. 2017;33:444–453. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20170504-01 [CrossRef]
  6. Yan H, Gong LY, Huang W, Peng YL, Clinical outcomes of small incision lenticule extraction versus femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK for myopia: a meta-analysis. Int J Ophthalmol. 2017;10:1436–1445.
  7. Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Randleman JB, Mathematical model to compare the relative tensile strength of the cornea after PRK, LASIK, and small incision lenticule extraction. J Refract Surg. 2013;29:454–460. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20130617-03 [CrossRef]
  8. Sinha Roy A, Dupps WJ Jr, Roberts CJ. Comparison of biomechanical effects of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and laser in situ keratomileusis: a finite element analysis study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40:971–980. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.08.065 [CrossRef]
  9. Shen Y, Chen Z, Knorz MC, Li M, Zhao J, Zhou X. Comparison of corneal deformation parameters after SMILE, LASEK, and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK. J Refract Surg. 2014;30:310–318. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20140422-01 [CrossRef]
  10. Wang D, Liu M, Chen Y, et al. Differences in the corneal biomechanical changes after SMILE and LASIK. J Refract Surg. 2014;30:702–707. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20140903-09 [CrossRef]
  11. Agca A, Ozgurhan EB, Demirok A, et al. Comparison of corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor after small incision lenticule extraction and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK: a prospective fellow eye study. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2014;37:77–80. doi:10.1016/j.clae.2013.05.003 [CrossRef]
  12. Pedersen IB, Bak-Nielsen S, Vestergaard AH, Ivarsen A, Hjortdal J. Corneal biomechanical properties after LASIK, ReLEx flex, and ReLEx smile by Scheimpflug-based dynamic tonometry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252:1329–1335. doi:10.1007/s00417-014-2667-6 [CrossRef]
  13. Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Igarashi A, Kobashi H, Sato N, Ishii R. Intraindividual comparison of changes in corneal biomechanical parameters after femtosecond lenticule extraction and small-incision lenticule extraction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40:963–970. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.12.013 [CrossRef]
  14. Sefat SM, Wiltfang R, Bechmann M, Mayer WJ, Kampik A, Kook D. Evaluation of changes in human corneas after femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) using non-contact tonometry and ultra-high-speed-camera (Corvis ST). Curr Eye Res. 2016;41:917–922. doi:10.3109/02713683.2015.1082185 [CrossRef]
  15. Osman IM, Helaly HA, Abdalla M, Shousha MA. Corneal biomechanical changes in eyes with small incision lenticule extraction and laser assisted in situ keratomileusis. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016;16:123. doi:10.1186/s12886-016-0304-3 [CrossRef]
  16. Goldich Y, Barkana Y, Morad Y, Hartstein M, Avni I, Zadok D. Can we measure corneal biomechanical changes after collagen cross-linking in eyes with keratoconus? A pilot study. Cornea. 2009;28:498–502. doi:10.1097/ICO.0b013e318190734d [CrossRef]
  17. Kling S, Bekesi N, Dorronsoro C, Pascual D, Marcos S. Corneal viscoelastic properties from finite-element analysis of in vivo air-puff deformation. PLoS One. 2014;9:e104904. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104904 [CrossRef]
  18. Kling S, Remon L, Pérez-Escudero A, Merayo-Lloves J, Marcos S. Corneal biomechanical changes after collagen cross-linking from porcine eye inflation experiments. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:3961–3968. doi:10.1167/iovs.09-4536 [CrossRef]
  19. Spiru B, Kling S, Hafezi F, Sekundo W. Biomechanical differences between femtosecond lenticule extraction (FLEx) and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) tested by 2d-extensometry in ex vivo porcine eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017;58:2591–2595. doi:10.1167/iovs.16-20211 [CrossRef]
  20. Elsheikh A, Alhasso D, Rama P. Assessment of the epithelium's contribution to corneal biomechanics. Exp Eye Res. 2008;86:445–451. doi:10.1016/j.exer.2007.12.002 [CrossRef]
  21. Kling S, Spiru B, Hafezi F, Sekundo W. Biomechanical weakening of different re-treatment options after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). J Refract Surg. 2017;33:193–198. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20161221-01 [CrossRef]
  22. Marshall J. The 2014 Bowman lecture: Bowman's and Bruch's: a tale of two membranes during the laser revolution. Eye(Lond). 2015;29:46–64.
  23. Kanellopoulos AJ. Comparison of corneal biomechanics after myopic small-incision lenticule extraction compared to LASIK: an ex vivo study. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12237–245. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S153509 [CrossRef]
Authors

From the Department of Ophthalmology, Philipps University of Marburg, Germany (BS, WS); Laboratory of Ocular Cell Biology, Center for Applied Biotechnology and Molecular Medicine, University of Zurich, Switzerland (SK, FH); O.P.T.I.C, Computer-assisted Applications in Medicine, Computer Vision Laboratory, Department of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland (SK); ELZA Institute, Dietikon/Zürich, Switzerland (FH); and the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California (FH).

Dr. Sekundo is a consultant to Carl Zeiss Meditec AG. The remaining authors have no financial or proprietary interest in the materials presented herein.

Drs. Spiru and Kling contributed equally to this work and should be considered as equal first authors.

Supported by the “Verein zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Augenheilkunde in Marburg e.V.” (Society to Promote Scientific Ophthalmology in Marburg, Germany).

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Study concept and design (BS, WS); data collection (BS, SK); analysis and interpretation of data (SK, FH, WS); writing the manuscript (BS); critical revision of the manuscript (SK, FH, WS); statistical expertise (SK); administrative, technical, or material support (BS, WS); supervision (WS)

The authors thank Prof. B. Malyugin, MD, PhD, Professor of Ophthalmology, Department of Cataract & Implant Surgery, Deputy Director General (R&D, Edu), S. Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery State Institution, for the helpful hint of designing a fellow-eye study.

Correspondence: Bogdan Spiru, MD, Department of Ophthalmology, Philipps University of Marburg, Baldingerstr. 1, 35043 Marburg, Germany. E-mail: spiru.bogdan@gmail.com

Received: February 20, 2018
Accepted: April 02, 2018

10.3928/1081597X-20180402-05

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents