Journal of Refractive Surgery

Original Article Supplemental Data

Influence of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Parameters on Myopic Correction in Small Incision Lenticule Extraction

Samuel Arba-Mosquera, PhD; David Y.S. Kang, MD; Michiel H.A. Luger, MD; Suphi Taneri, MD

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To evaluate the influence of different extrinsic and intrinsic parameters on outcomes in eyes with myopia or myopic astigmatism that underwent small incision lenticule extraction.

METHODS:

This was a multicenter retrospective chart review of three private centers. At last follow-up, 2,564 eyes of 1,524 patients (> 340 patients per center, time span of > 2 years for each center) were analyzed. The effect of different parameters on postoperative spherical equivalent refraction was assessed using univariate linear and multilinear correlations. Seasonal variations in the outcomes were evaluated through a sine fit. The analyses were performed per individual practice and combined.

RESULTS:

Higher corrections and younger patients showed relative undercorrections (almost 1% per diopter [D] of planned correction or decade of age). Female patients showed relative overcorrections compared to male patients (> 1%). There was a systematic undercorrection (−0.40 D). Other parameters showed statistical significance in one or two practices, but not in all three cohorts. Seasonal variations in postoperative outcomes were found.

CONCLUSIONS:

Higher corrections, older patients, and gender affected postoperative outcomes in a subtle yet significant manner at all three centers. A system-universal correction, age, and gender-dependent adjustment may help optimize small incision lenticule extraction refractive outcomes. Other parameters and seasonal variations may benefit from an individual center-based adjustment because nomogram adjustment was different for each center.

[J Refract Surg. 2019;35(11):712–720.]

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To evaluate the influence of different extrinsic and intrinsic parameters on outcomes in eyes with myopia or myopic astigmatism that underwent small incision lenticule extraction.

METHODS:

This was a multicenter retrospective chart review of three private centers. At last follow-up, 2,564 eyes of 1,524 patients (> 340 patients per center, time span of > 2 years for each center) were analyzed. The effect of different parameters on postoperative spherical equivalent refraction was assessed using univariate linear and multilinear correlations. Seasonal variations in the outcomes were evaluated through a sine fit. The analyses were performed per individual practice and combined.

RESULTS:

Higher corrections and younger patients showed relative undercorrections (almost 1% per diopter [D] of planned correction or decade of age). Female patients showed relative overcorrections compared to male patients (> 1%). There was a systematic undercorrection (−0.40 D). Other parameters showed statistical significance in one or two practices, but not in all three cohorts. Seasonal variations in postoperative outcomes were found.

CONCLUSIONS:

Higher corrections, older patients, and gender affected postoperative outcomes in a subtle yet significant manner at all three centers. A system-universal correction, age, and gender-dependent adjustment may help optimize small incision lenticule extraction refractive outcomes. Other parameters and seasonal variations may benefit from an individual center-based adjustment because nomogram adjustment was different for each center.

[J Refract Surg. 2019;35(11):712–720.]

Laser corneal refractive surgery is based on the use of a laser to change the corneal curvature to compensate for refractive errors of the eye.1 For small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), the lack of automated centration and cyclotorsion control in the current version of the laser system may result in undercorrections or overcorrections (or, in general, residual refractions) greater than current excimer-based refractive surgeries. Specific analyses of the age for refractive surgery outcomes also have been reported,2–4 suggesting older patients achieve more refractive change for the same attempted dioptric correction. Several studies have assessed the effects of corneal curvature on refractive surgery,5–14 suggesting overcorrections and induced positive spherical aberration in myopia, and undercorrections and induced negative spherical aberration in hyperopia.

Specific analyses of the effects of corneal curvature on refractive surgery outcomes also have been reported,2,15,16 suggesting that preoperative keratometry may play a role in the outcome of refractive surgery, with steeper corneas achieving more myopic and less hyperopic refractive change for the same attempted dioptric correction, and loss of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and decreased patient satisfaction associated with steeper corneas.

Several studies indicate the relevant influence of age,17 keratometry,18–20 and seasonal differences on laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) outcomes,21 but differences after SMILE have not yet been evaluated in depth. We wanted to study the effects of various extrinsic (ie, patient based, preoperative) and intrinsic (ie, laser based, intraoperative) parameters on SMILE outcomes.

Patients and Methods

Patient Population and Examinations

Consecutive patients undergoing SMILE for myopic refractive corrections between 2015 and 2019 treated at three different private practices in Zentrum für Refracktive Chirurgie, Munster, Germany (952 eyes of 566 patients); Eyereum, Seoul, Korea (1,030 eyes of 612 patients); Bergmanclinics, Utrecht, The Netherlands (582 eyes of 346 patients) were retrospectively analyzed at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoeratively, respectively.

Eyes included in the study had manifest spherical equivalent refractive error ranging from −1.00 to −11.38 diopters (D) with up to 5.00 D of astigmatism. Patient charts were reviewed for the study if they had CDVA of 20/25 or better using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts or Landolt rings in an electronic monitor at constant ambient illumination, stable refraction for more than 1 year prior to the study, and discontinued contact lenses for at least 2 to 4 weeks (depending on the type of contact lens) prior to the preoperative evaluation. Patients were required to have normal keratometry and topography.

Treatment Plan

The sphere and cylinder values entered into the laser were based on the manifest refraction with nomogram adjustments based on the particular experiences at each center (but the analyses were performed as deviation from the planned correction, instead of from clinical target). All eyes underwent the refractive treatment using a 6.1- to 7.4-mm lenticular diameter. Re-treatments were not considered for this retrospective study.

Surgery

Drops of topical anesthetics were instilled in the upper and lower fornices. A sterile drape covering the eyelashes and face was used to isolate the surgical field. An eyelid speculum was inserted to allow maximum exposure of the globe. Proper alignment of the eye with the laser was achieved. Patients were requested to look at a pulsing green fixation light. SMILE was performed using a VisuMax 500-KHz femtosecond laser (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). The lenticule was extracted and patients received topical antibiotic drops four times a day for 1 week, corticosteroid drops four times a day tapering off in 1 week, and ocular lubricants as needed.

Data Analysis

All data were analyzed using Excel software (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA).

Analyzed Parameters

Table 1 presents the analyzed parameters (classified as extrinsic or intrinsic) with the corresponding mean values, standard deviations, and ranges for each center.

Analyzed Parameters, Mean ± SD (Range)

Table 1:

Analyzed Parameters, Mean ± SD (Range)

Global Trends

Global trends were determined segregating the cohort into thirds and comparing the deviation from the plan of the lower third (from minimum to percentile 33) and the upper third (from percentile 67 to maximum) for each parameter. This way we determined whether treatments performed in the lower end of parameter A were more prone to undercorrection/overcorrection compared to treatments performed in the upper end of parameter A. Conversely, we segregated the cohort into thirds and compared the parameters of the lower third and the upper third regarding deviation from the plan. This way we determined whether treatments resulting in the lower end of undercorrection have a lower or higher value for parameter A compared to treatments resulting in the upper end of overcorrection. A parameter was considered affecting the treatment outcomes only if both complementary analyses reached statistical significance.

Univariate Analyses

The effect of the different parameters on postoperative status was assessed using univariate linear and multilinear correlations. Multilinear correlations were assessed as follows:

Attempted-Achieved=∑mi⋅Pi+Attempted⋅∑ni⋅Pi+b

where attempted is the planned spherical equivalent refraction, achieved is the achieved refractive spherical equivalent refraction change, mi and ni are the partial slopes of the evaluated parameters (Pi), and b is the intercept.

The first sum represents the deviation from target as a function of the input parameters (whether any/some of the input parameters induce(s) a bias [fix diopter amount] on the outcomes), whereas the second sum represents the relative deviation from target as a function of the input parameters (whether any/some of the input parameters induce(s) a gain [percentage diopter amount] on the outcomes).

For all multilinear analyses, we started with as many degrees of freedom as available for that cohort and applied stepwise regression with backward removal of the term associated with the highest P value if that was higher than the chosen cut-off of .05.

Keratometry Analyses

In one center, postoperative keratometries were available for all treatments. The univariate analyses were repeated as described above to determine parameters affecting the corneal flattening.

Seasonal Variations

Seasonal outcomes were evaluated stratified per year season. For that, treatments were cumulated per season. Cumulated treatment refractive outcomes (per season) were compared to the global treatment refractive outcomes. The Student's t test comparing stratified values with global values was used for the statistical analysis.

Robustness

To gain robustness, all analyses were run four times, once per dataset and once with the global dataset. This way, we compared which input parameters affected all three centers (and then are likely to be inherent to the procedure) and whether some affected only one dataset (ie, are likely “surgeon” dependent). From the global dataset, we obtained a robust metric on which parameters still achieve statistical significance when the cohort is three times as large.

The significance of the correlations was evaluated considering a metric distributed approximately as t with N—degrees of freedom, where N is the size of the sample considered as number of patients (and not of treated eyes).

Unpaired t tests or analysis of variance tests were used to determine statistically significant changes. A P value of less than .05 was considered statistically significant. Data from 3 months to 1 year after SMILE are reported here.

Results

Accountability and Stratification

A total of 2,564 eyes (1,030 + 582 + 952) of 1,524 (612 + 346 + 566) patients were included in the analyses. Demographics at the time of treatment are presented in Table 1.

Standard Refractive Analyses

The standard refractive analyses are displayed in Figures AC (available in the online version of this article) for the three different centers. Figure A shows approximately 50% of the patients achieved visual acuity of 20/16 or better. Except for one center, both in UDVA and CDVA, some patients (20% for UDVA and 5% for CDVA) lost two lines compared to preoperative CDVA. For all centers, the gain or loss of lines was rather symmetric and resulted in no mean change overall.

Comparison of the visual outcomes among the three centers. The rows represent postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) versus preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (top), difference in postoperative UDVA minus preoperative CDVA (middle), and change in CDVA (bottom). The columns represent the three centers (left: Korea, center: The Netherlands, right: Germany).

Figure A.

Comparison of the visual outcomes among the three centers. The rows represent postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) versus preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (top), difference in postoperative UDVA minus preoperative CDVA (middle), and change in CDVA (bottom). The columns represent the three centers (left: Korea, center: The Netherlands, right: Germany).

Comparison of the refractive scattergrams among the three centers. The rows represent achieved versus attempted spherical equivalent (SEQ) and target induced astigmatism versus surgically induced astigmatism (bottom). The columns represent the three centers (left: Korea, center: The Netherlands, right: Germany). D = diopters

Figure B.

Comparison of the refractive scattergrams among the three centers. The rows represent achieved versus attempted spherical equivalent (SEQ) and target induced astigmatism versus surgically induced astigmatism (bottom). The columns represent the three centers (left: Korea, center: The Netherlands, right: Germany). D = diopters

Comparison of the refractive accuracy among the three centers. The rows represent spherical equivalent (SEQ) (top), refractive astigmatism (middle), and angle of error (bottom). The columns represent the three centers (left: Korea, center: The Netherlands, right: Germany). D = diopters

Figure C.

Comparison of the refractive accuracy among the three centers. The rows represent spherical equivalent (SEQ) (top), refractive astigmatism (middle), and angle of error (bottom). The columns represent the three centers (left: Korea, center: The Netherlands, right: Germany). D = diopters

Figure B shows that the scattergrams are slightly different, but they all show that, for example, for −8.00 D of intended correction actually −7.25 to −7.50 D was achieved. Figure C shows the accuracy of the treatments in spherical equivalent refraction, cylinder, and angle.

Effects on Postoperative Outcomes

Global Trends. The results of the percentile analyses are presented in Table 2.

Results of Percentile Analyses

Table 2:

Results of Percentile Analyses

Univariate Analyses. The results of the linear analyses are presented in Table 3. There was an increasing undercorrection of higher treatments (0.92% or −0.053 D extra undercorrection per each diopter). Females were less undercorrected compared to males (by 1.32%). Age was correlated (for all three centers and globally), and for each decade there was 0.8% or 0.04 D less undercorrection. Steeper keratometries induced −0.029 D more undercorrection per diopter. Each millimeter larger optical zones and cap diameters resulted in 5.44% or 0.248 D and 6.44% or 0.347 D less undercorrection, respectively. Each micrometer thicker cap and minimum lenticular thickness resulted in −0.31% or −0.022 D more undercorrection and 0.77% or 0.036 D less undercorrection, respectively. Finally, higher laser pulse energies resulted in less undercorrection (0.93% or 0.046 D per each 5 nJ).

Results of the Linear Analyses

Table 3:

Results of the Linear Analyses

The results of the univariate multilinear analyses are presented in Table 4. There was an increasing undercorrection for higher treatments (−0.044 D extra undercorrection per each diopter). For each decade there was 0.03 D less undercorrection, and steeper keratometries induced 0.020 D less undercorrection per diopter. Each millimeter larger cap diameter resulted in −6.02% more under-correction. Each micrometer thicker cap and minimum lenticular thickness resulted in −0.08% more undercorrection and 0.40% less undercorrection, respectively.

Results of the Univariate Multilinear Analyses

Table 4:

Results of the Univariate Multilinear Analyses

Keratometry Analyses. The results of the keratometric analyses are presented in Table 5. Left eyes (second eye) resulted in 0.121 D less undercorrection compared to right eyes (first eye). Steeper keratometries induced 1.21% less undercorrection per diopter. Each millimeter larger cap diameter resulted in 8.47% less undercorrection. Each micrometer thicker minimum lenticule thickness resulted in 0.52% less undercorrection. Finally, higher laser pulse energies resulted in less undercorrection (0.041 D per each 5 nJ).

Results of the Keratometric Analyses

Table 5:

Results of the Keratometric Analyses

Seasonal Variations. Seasonal variations are presented in Table 6. For two centers (and globally), there was a systematic relative overcorrection in spring and a systematic undercorrection in summer (both of approximately 1.5%).

Results of the Seasonal Variations

Table 6:

Results of the Seasonal Variations

Discussion

We evaluated the influence of preoperative and intraoperative parameters on postoperative clinical outcomes of SMILE in a large multicenter (multiethnic and multigeographic) population with myopia. Remarkably, astigmatism up to 5.00 D was treated in our sample. Altogether, 16% of the treatments (432 eyes) were planned with an astigmatism higher than 1.50 D.

In our study, SMILE was safe and predictable (> 99% within 1.00 D spherical equivalent refraction, 50% eyes 20/16 or better UDVA, 90% eyes 20/25 or better UDVA). The scattergrams are slightly different, but they all show that, for example, for −8.00 D actually −7.25 to −7.50 D were achieved. The differences in accuracy are explained by the different nomograms used (ie, not the distribution of the postoperative refractions, but the difference in spherical equivalent refraction to the target).

Although nomograms were already individually applied, we have performed the analyses on a “deviation from plan” approach. In such a way, the individual nomograms applied (which may actually have been evolving during the course of the 3-year treatments) shall not play a role in the measured findings.

The global trends analysis showed that age and planned sphere are the only extrinsic parameters showing a systematic effect on the outcomes. In contrast, among the analyzed intrinsic parameters, only cap thickness did not show a systematic effect. Optical zone, cap diameter, minimum lenticule thickness, and pulse energy had a systematic effect that was consistent among all three centers.

The univariate analysis confirmed these findings one-to-one and allowed us to quantify them on an individual basis (ie, without accounting for collinearities). The univariate multilinear analysis aimed to decouple effects and reduce collinearity among predictors.

The detailed values are less consistent among centers (possibly due to slight differences in technical performance among the devices), but still show that there is a global undercorrection for all centers (−0.40 D on average). After taking into account all parameters, on average among the three cohorts, −0.40 D undercorrection was the difference between what has been planned and what has been achieved as defocus correction (spherical equivalent). This average under-correction was actually not observed when considering the postoperative data alone because the centers applied their own surgeon-developed nomogram.

Cap diameter, cap thickness, and minimum lenticule thickness remain important intrinsic parameters, whereas planned sphere, age, and keratometry are the extrinsic parameters affecting the outcomes. Finally, the analysis of keratometric changes also confirms that cap diameter, cap thickness, and pulse energy remain important intrinsic parameters, whereas laterality and keratometry also affect the outcomes.

Keratometry (steeper corneas inducing undercorrections), minimum lenticule thickness (thicker reducing undercorrections), and laser energy (higher reducing undercorrections) affected all four analyses, whereas age (older reducing undercorrections), planned sphere (higher inducing undercorrections), optical zone/cap diameter (collinear; larger reducing undercorrections), and cap thickness (deeper inducing undercorrections) had an affect on refractive analyses but not on the keratometric analysis. Interestingly, laterality (second eye problem) could only be detected in the keratometric analysis (single center).

Keratometries likely affect the outcomes due to a larger deformation of the cornea onto the curved (but flatter than the cornea) patient interface (higher deformations inducing undercorrections). Minimum lenticule thickness adds tissue to be removed so it is intuitive to think that this may affect the refractive effect of the extraction. Higher laser energies produce larger cavitation bubbles, so that although the center of the bubbles may lie at the same relative locations, the envelope of the affected tissue is larger, potentially affecting the refractive effect of the extraction; planned sphere and cap thickness effects may be related to the decreasing refractive index of the cornea for deeper corneal layers.

The linear models applied (both the univariate and multilinear models) accurately represented the population findings and cannot be regarded as reporting spurious correlations by chance. The correlations were 0.49 in Germany, 0.64 in the Netherlands, and 0.78 in Korea, meaning that up to 61% of the variance could be explained by the survival model. The findings were more predictable in the refraction than in keratometry readings (providing a correlation of 0.39 [ie, only 15% of the variance being explained]). It may be that the keratometry readings are simply too noisy compared to the 0.25 D steps (or 0.125 D steps) of the refraction. An artificial intelligence system or algorithm that can be used to predict or preempt the errors could further refine our findings.

Tables 23 show that higher correction was associated with more undercorrection. This means that, for example, the linear regression considering only spherical equivalent refraction was of the form y = m * x + b, with m < 1 and b > 0. In other words as a fictious example, for 2.00 D of planned myopia, 1.75 D were obtained (0.25 D or −13%), but for 12.00 D of planned myopia, 10.25 D were obtained (1.75 D or −15%). On the other hand, the thicker the minimum lenticule thickness was, the less undercorrection was observed (eg, 7.00 D of myopic correction may have been undercorrected by 1.50 D [21%] when treated with a 10-µm minimum lenticule thickness, but by only 0.75 D [11%] when treated with a 20-µm minimum lenticule thickness).

The effect of patients' age on postoperative status has been assessed using univariate linear and multilinear correlations. Univariate linear analyses showed residual refraction correlated to patients' age (indicating overcorrections for older patients).

Specific analyses of the age on refractive surgery outcomes also have been reported,2–4 suggesting age may play a role in the outcome of refractive surgery, and older patients more have refractive change with the same intended dioptric correction. Those studies may indicate a relevant influence of age on refractive surgery outcomes, but subtle differences may be masked by moderate corrections and small populations. In our cohort, age influenced the achieved correction. An age-based nomogram can be quantified, in either stratified or continuous form. The regression relationship is likely valid as a system-universal compensation, but may need modification for application to other systems.

The water content of the cornea decreases with age,22,23 and it is independent from the refraction or the type of refraction. The more water the cornea contains, the lower the corneal refractive index is.24–26 Accommodation decreases with age,27–29 and it is independent from the refraction or type of refraction. However, this means that typically the patients are overminused in the refractions when they are myopic.30–35

In any refractive procedure, an ideal feature would be correction efficiency irrespective of the preoperative curvature of the cornea of the patient. Many studies have shown an increase in the correction efficiency for steeper corneas in myopia correction.

Literature reports that keratometry may influence refractive outcomes.2–11 Theoretical and clinical analyses both suggest that steeper corneas induce “hyperopic shifts” (ie, myopic overcorrections and hyperopic undercorrections).12–17

All of these parameters could also be objectively assessed by analyzing changes in keratometry readings instead of changes in refraction. Yet, postoperative keratometry readings for the complete cohort were available in only one dataset.

Of note, this nomogram is quantified based on the postoperative outcomes of the pooled data from three different VisuMax laser systems.

The diurnal fluctuation of biomechanical and morphological corneal properties is well known.36–38 However, there is no information about the moment of the day in which the surgeries were performed. Pooling together 2,564 consecutive treatments during a 3-year period, it is unlikely that in different months or seasons the moment of the day in which the surgeries were performed is significantly different.

We acknowledge the importance of environmental temperature and relative humidity during surgery, but it was not recorded in a single case record in this retrospective review. We just wanted to know whether different seasons through the year lead to different refractive outcomes. If so, one of the indicators explaining the findings could be environmental temperature and relative humidity during surgery.

To make sure that the relative overcorrections or undercorrections were not related to the different spherical equivalent planned at different seasons, we looked at the slope of the correlation, which also confirmed these differences. The treatment refractive outcome of the whole year is influenced by that of a certain season, but it is a robust analysis to compare a subset to a much larger dataset including the subset. This method is valid, although it is more prone to result in type II errors (ie, non-rejection of a false null hypothesis, also known as a false-negative finding). This is a more conservative approach because the criteria for type I errors are more stringent (ie, the significant findings are robust), whereas borderline differences tend to be rejected.

We could have compared the outcome of a certain season versus the other three seasons, but we thought that because continuities are expected, eliminating one season could artefactually increase the standard deviation of the means. Alternatively, we could have compared the outcome of a certain season versus each of the other three seasons (in a 4 × 4 matrix [or half-matrix] fashion), but we thought that it may be prone to spurious findings (type I error). Treatments performed in spring showed relative overcorrections of the spherical equivalent (P < .05), whereas treatments performed in summer showed relative undercorrections of the spherical equivalent (P < .05).

A limitation is the retrospective nature of the study. Further, the treatments were performed by three different surgeons in three different countries using three different VisuMax units, adding some extra variability to the cohort. Several confounding factors may be argued in our review (eg, we have considered both eyes of the patients).

Another limitation is that the observed undercorrection increased for treatments performed later in all three cohorts (−0.088 D or −1.46% extra undercorrection per year in the Korean cohort; −0.17 D or −3.64% extra undercorrection per year in the Dutch cohort; and −0.038 D or −0.95% extra undercorrection per year in the German cohort). We cannot exclude that this time dependency may be a consequence of changes in the surgical technique, but it seems an artefactual finding because the time dependency does not survive the stepwise backward elimination process.

This study demonstrated that both intrinsic and extrinsic treatment parameters affect postoperative outcomes in a subtle yet significant manner. Seasonal differences in refractive outcomes were observed among a large multicenter population. This may be related to environmental factors (temperature and/or humidity). The potential effect of these environmental variables on refractive outcomes warrants further evaluation.

References

  1. Munnerlyn CR, Koons SJ, Marshall J. Photorefractive keratectomy: a technique for laser refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1988;14(1):46–52. doi:10.1016/S0886-3350(88)80063-4 [CrossRef]3339547
  2. Rao SN, Chuck RS, Chang AH, LaBree L, McDonnell PJ. Effect of age on the refractive outcome of myopic photorefractive keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;26(4):543–546. doi:10.1016/S0886-3350(99)00465-4 [CrossRef]10771227
  3. Hefetz L, Domnitz Y, Haviv D, et al. Influence of patient age on refraction and corneal haze after photorefractive keratectomy. Br J Ophthalmol. 1997;81(8):637–638. doi:10.1136/bjo.81.8.637 [CrossRef]9349148
  4. Loewenstein A, Lipshitz I, Levanon D, Ben-Sirah A, Lazar M. Influence of patient age on photorefractive keratectomy for myopia. J Refract Surg. 1997;13(1):23–26.9049931
  5. Jiménez JR, Castro JJ, Ortiz C, Anera RG. Testing a model for excimer laser-ablation rates on corneal shape after refractive surgery. Opt Lett. 2010;35(11):1789–1791. doi:10.1364/OL.35.001789 [CrossRef]20517417
  6. Dorronsoro C, Remon L, Merayo-Lloves J, Marcos S. Experimental evaluation of optimized ablation patterns for laser refractive surgery. Opt Express. 2009;17(17):15292–15307. doi:10.1364/OE.17.015292 [CrossRef]19688008
  7. Dorronsoro C, Siegel J, Remon L, Marcos S. Suitability of Filofocon A and PMMA for experimental models in excimer laser ablation refractive surgery. Opt Express. 2008;16(25):20955–20967. doi:10.1364/OE.16.020955 [CrossRef]19065235
  8. Kwon Y, Choi M, Bott S. Impact of ablation efficiency reduction on post-surgery corneal asphericity: simulation of the laser refractive surgery with a flying spot laser beam. Opt Express. 2008;16(16):11808–11821. doi:10.1364/OE.16.011808 [CrossRef]18679453
  9. Anera RG, Villa C, Jiménez JR, Gutiérrez R, del Barco LJ. Differences between real and predicted corneal shapes after aspherical corneal ablation. Appl Opt. 2005;44(21):4528–4532. doi:10.1364/AO.44.004528 [CrossRef]16047903
  10. Mrochen M, Seiler T. Influence of corneal curvature on calculation of ablation patterns used in photorefractive laser surgery. J Refract Surg. 2001;17(5):S584–S587.11583235
  11. Kwon Y, Bott S. Postsurgery corneal asphericity and spherical aberration due to ablation efficiency reduction and corneal remodelling in refractive surgeries. Eye (Lond). 2009;23(9):1845–1850. doi:10.1038/eye.2008.356 [CrossRef]
  12. Jiménez JR, Rodríguez-Marín F, Anera RG, Jiménez Del Barco L. Deviations of Lambert-Beer's law affect corneal refractive parameters after refractive surgery. Opt Express. 2006;14(12):5411–5417. doi:10.1364/OE.14.005411 [CrossRef]19516707
  13. Yoon G, Macrae S, Williams DR, Cox IG. Causes of spherical aberration induced by laser refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31(1):127–135. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.10.046 [CrossRef]15721705
  14. Cano D, Barbero S, Marcos S. Comparison of real and computer-simulated outcomes of LASIK refractive surgery. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2004;21(6):926–936. doi:10.1364/JOSAA.21.000926 [CrossRef]15191172
  15. Young JJ, Schallhorn SC, Brown MC, Hettinger KA. Effect of keratometry on visual outcomes 1 month after hyperopic LASIK. J Refract Surg. 2009;25(7)(suppl):S672–S676. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20090611-09 [CrossRef]19705542
  16. Williams L, Moshirfar M, Dave S. Preoperative keratometry and visual outcomes after hyperopic LASIK. J Refract Surg. 2009;25(12):1052. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20091117-03 [CrossRef]20000285
  17. Luger MH, Ewering T, Arba-Mosquera S. Influence of patient age on high myopic correction in corneal laser refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39(2):204–210. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.07.032 [CrossRef]23332251
  18. Williams LB, Dave SB, Moshirfar M. Correlation of visual outcome and patient satisfaction with preoperative keratometry after hyperopic laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(7):1083–1088. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.03.018 [CrossRef]18571073
  19. de Benito-Llopis L, Teus MA, Sánchez-Pina JM, Gil-Cazorla R. Influence of preoperative keratometry on refractive results after laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy to correct myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(6):968–973. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.01.027 [CrossRef]18499003
  20. Cobo-Soriano R, Llovet F, González-López F, Domingo B, Gómez-Sanz F, Baviera J. Factors that influence outcomes of hyperopic laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28(9):1530–1538. doi:10.1016/S0886-3350(02)01367-6 [CrossRef]12231306
  21. Luger MH, Ewering T, Arba-Mosquera S. Analysis of seasonal changes in residual refraction 1-year after corneal laser refractive surgery: a retrospective study. J Optom. 2014;7(3):138–146. doi:10.1016/j.optom.2013.12.004 [CrossRef]25000869
  22. Amparo F, Patel S, Alió JL, Rodriguez-Prats JL, Moreno LJ. Relationship between patient age and refractive index of the corneal stroma during refractive surgery assisted by femtosecond laser flap creation. Cornea. 2012;31(7):751–755. doi:10.1097/ICO.0b013e31823f8a58 [CrossRef]22333660
  23. Patel S, Alió JL, Amparo F, Rodriguez-Prats JL. The influence of age on the refractive index of the human corneal stroma resected using a mechanical microkeratome. Cornea. 2011;30(12):1353–1357. doi:10.1097/ICO.0b013e31821008d5 [CrossRef]21993460
  24. Kim WS, Jo JM. Corneal hydration affects ablation during laser in situ keratomileusis surgery. Cornea. 2001;20(4):394–397. doi:10.1097/00003226-200105000-00011 [CrossRef]11333327
  25. Oshika T, Klyce SD, Smolek MK, McDonald MB. Corneal hydration and central islands after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24(12):1575–1580. doi:10.1016/S0886-3350(98)80345-3 [CrossRef]9850893
  26. Dougherty PJ, Wellish KL, Maloney RK. Excimer laser ablation rate and corneal hydration. Am J Ophthalmol. 1994;118(2):169–176. doi:10.1016/S0002-9394(14)72896-X [CrossRef]8053462
  27. Strenk SA, Strenk LM, Koretz JF. The mechanism of presbyopia. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2005;24(3):379–393. doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2004.11.001 [CrossRef]15708834
  28. Atchison DA. Accommodation and presbyopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1995;15(4):255–272. doi:10.1016/0275-5408(95)00020-E [CrossRef]7667018
  29. Koretz JF, Kaufman PL, Neider MW, Goeckner PA. Accommodation and presbyopia in the human eye: 1. Evaluation of in vivo measurement techniques. Appl Opt. 1989;28(6):1097–1102. doi:10.1364/AO.28.001097 [CrossRef]20548625
  30. Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Couch D. Accuracy of the WASCA aberrometer refraction compared to manifest refraction in myopia. J Refract Surg. 2006;22(3):268–274. doi:10.3928/1081-597X-20060301-12 [CrossRef]16602316
  31. Cervino A, Hosking SL, Rai GK, Naroo SA, Gilmartin B. Wavefront analyzers induce instrument myopia. J Refract Surg. 2006;22(8):795–803. doi:10.3928/1081-597X-20061001-10 [CrossRef]17061717
  32. Salmon TO, West RW, Gasser W, Kenmore T. Measurement of refractive errors in young myopes using the COAS Shack-Hartmann aberrometer. Optom Vis Sci. 2003;80(1):6–14. doi:10.1097/00006324-200301000-00003 [CrossRef]12553539
  33. Zadnik K, Mutti DO, Kim HS, Jones LA, Qiu PH, Moeschberger ML. Tonic accommodation, age, and refractive error in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40(6):1050–1060.10235538
  34. Miwa T. Instrument myopia and the resting state of accommodation. Optom Vis Sci. 1992;69(1):55–59. doi:10.1097/00006324-199201000-00009 [CrossRef]1741112
  35. Thibos LN. Unresolved issues in the prediction of subjective refraction from wavefront aberration maps. J Refract Surg. 2004;20(5):S533–S536.15523971
  36. Shen M, Wang J, Qu J, et al. Diurnal variation of ocular hysteresis, corneal thickness, and intraocular pressure. Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85(12):1185–1192. doi:10.1097/OPX.0b013e31818e8abe [CrossRef]19050473
  37. Mierdel P, Krinke HE, Pollack K, Spoerl E. Diurnal fluctuation of higher order ocular aberrations: correlation with intraocular pressure and corneal thickness. J Refract Surg. 2004;20(3):236–242.15188900
  38. Oncel B, Dinc UA, Gorgun E, Yalvaç BI. Diurnal variation of corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure in normal subjects. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009;19(5):798–803. doi:10.1177/112067210901900518 [CrossRef]19787600

Analyzed Parameters, Mean ± SD (Range)

ParameterKorea (n = 1,030 Eyes)The Netherlands (n = 582 Eyes)Germany (n = 952 Eyes)Overall (n = 2,564 Eyes)
Extrinsic
  Age (years)28 ± 6 (19 to 45)35 ± 9 (19 to 57)36 ± 10 (18 to 62)33 ± 11 (18 to 62)
  Planned sphere (D)−4.28 ± 1.05 (−1.35 to −7.25)−4.67 ± 1.85 (−1.29 to −9.50)−5.00 ± 2.32 (−0.25 to −10.00)−4.64 ± 2.43 (−0.25 to −10.00)
  Planned cylinder (D)0.93 ± 0.74 (0.00 to 4.50)0.76 ± 0.63 (0.00 to 3.50)0.86 ± 0.83 (0.00 to 5.00)0.86 ± 0.97 (0.00 to 5.00)
  Male gender54%43%38%45%
  Right eye50%49%51%50%
  K-readings (D)42.80 ± 1.30 (38.40 to 46.60)43.60 ± 1.50 (40.00 to 47.90)43.60 ± 1.50 (39.70 to 48.20)43.30 ± 1.90 (38.40 to 48.20)
  Pachymetry (µm)559 ± 23 (519 to 651)552 ± 28 (493 to 637)555 ± 31 (482 to 663)556 ± 37 (482 to 663)
Intrinsic
  Optical zone (mm)6.8 ± 0.2 (6.3 to 7.2)6.9 ± 0.2 (6.3 to 7.2)6.5 ± 0.2 (6.0 to 7.0)6.7 ± 0.3 (6.0 to 7.2)
  Cap diameter(mm)7.8 ± 0.2 (7.3 to 8.0)7.6 ± 0.2 (7.2 to 8.0)7.4 ± 0.2 (6.8 to 7.9)7.6 ± 0.3 (6.8 to 8.0)
  Cap thickness (µm)125 ± 7 (120 to 140)130 ± 6 (115 to 140)118 ± 6 (100 to 120)124 ± 8 (100 to 140)
  Minimum lenticule thickness (µm)14 ± 2 (10 to 20)15 ± 2 (10 to 25)14 ± 3 (10 to 30)14 ± 3 (10 to 30)
  Laser energy (VisuMax index), 1 unit = 5 nJ23 ± 2 (20 to 33)26 ± 3 (22 to 32)n/a (23 to 28)25 ± 4 (20 to 33)

Results of Percentile Analyses

ParameterKoreaThe NetherlandsGermany
Extrinsic
  Age (years)n.s.Older patients = less undercorrection, P < .0001Older patients = less undercorrection, P < .00001
  Planned sphere (D)Higher correction = higher undercorrection, P < .0001Higher correction = higher undercorrection, P < .0001Higher correction = higher undercorrection, P < .0001
  Planned cylinder (D)n.s.n.s.n.s.
  Gender (M/F)Male = higher undercorrection, P < .005n.s.n.s.
  Eye (OD/OS)n.s.n.s.n.s.
  K-readings (D)n.s.n.s.Steeper K = higher undercorrection, P < .002
  Pachymetry (µm)n.s.n.s.n.s.
Intrinsic
  Optical zone (mm)Larger zone = less undercorrection, P < .01Larger zone = less undercorrection, P < .01Larger zone = less undercorrection, P < .02
  Cap diameter (mm)Larger cap = less undercorrection, P < .001Larger cap = less undercorrection, P < .00001Larger cap = less undercorrection, P < .001
  Cap thickness (µm)Thicker cap = higher undercorrection, P < .00001n.s.n.s.
  Minimum lenticule thickness (µm)Thicker lenticule = less undercorrection, P < .00001Thicker lenticule = less undercorrection, P < .03Thicker lenticule = less undercorrection, P < .001
  Laser energy (VisuMax index), 1 unit = 5 nJHigher energy = less undercorrection, P < .00001Higher energy = less undercorrection, P < .00001n/a

Results of the Linear Analyses

ParameterKoreaThe NetherlandsGermanyOverall




Relative DeviationArithmetic DeviationRelative DeviationArithmetic DeviationRelative DeviationArithmetic DeviationRelative DeviationArithmetic Deviation
Extrinsic
  Age (years)0.06%0.0030.12%0.0070.07%0.0040.08%0.004
  Planned sphere (D)1.53%−0.0740.77%−0.0440.41%−0.0370.92%−0.053
  Planned cylinder (D)−0.48%0.024n.s.n.s.n.s.−0.046n.s.−0.010
  Gender (M/F)1.00%0.0471.75%n.s.n.s.n.s.1.32%n.s.
  Eye (OD/OS)0.72%n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
  K-readings (D)n.s.n.s.n.s.−0.025−0.70%−0.032n.s.−0.029
  Pachymetry (µm)n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.0.01%0.001n.s.n.s.
Intrinsic
  Optical zone (mm)3.42%0.1367.09%0.3426.24%0.2925.44%0.248
  Cap diameter (mm)4.35%0.18812.58%0.6463.82%0.2786.44%0.347
  Cap thickness (µm)−0.54%−0.028−0.31%−0.013−0.06%n.s.−0.31%−0.022
  Minimum lenticule thickness (µm)0.92%0.0471.10%0.0430.37%0.0180.77%0.036
  Laser energy (VisuMax index), 1 unit = 5 nJ0.84%0.0401.04%0.054n/an/a0.93%0.046

Results of the Univariate Multilinear Analyses

ParameterKoreaThe NetherlandsGermanyOverall




Relative DeviationArithmetic DeviationRelative DeviationArithmetic DeviationRelative DeviationArithmetic DeviationRelative DeviationArithmetic Deviation
Extrinsic
  Age (years)n.s.0.002n.s.0.0041.56%0.004n.s.0.003
  Planned sphere (D)n.s.−0.024n.s.−0.029−0.83%−0.076n.s.−0.044
  Planned cylinder (D)0.56%n.s.n.s.n.s.1.79%−0.121.16%n.s.
  Gender (M/F)n.s.n.s.−0.59%n.s.n.s.0.084n.s.n.s.
  Eye (OD/OS)n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
  K-readings (D)n.s.n.s.n.s.−0.023−1.37%0.054n.s.0.020
  Pachymetry (µm)n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
Intrinsic
  Optical zone (mm)n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.14.58%−0.643n.s.n.s.
  Cap diameter (mm)−1.73%n.s.n.s.n.s.−10.48%0.565−6.02%n.s.
  Cap thickness (µm)−0.23%−0.0350.20%n.s.−0.15%n.s.−0.08%n.s.
  Minimum lenticule thickness (µm)n.s.0.0150.53%n.s.0.30%n.s.0.40%n.s.
  Laser energy (VisuMax index), 1 unit = 5 nJn.s.0.0170.94%n.s.n/an/an.s.n.s.
  Intercept−0.716−0.324−0.180−0.417

Results of the Keratometric Analyses

ParameterRxdeltaKOverall



Relative DeviationArithmetic DeviationRelative DeviationArithmetic DeviationRelative DeviationArithmetic Deviation
Extrinsic
  Age (years)n.s.0.002n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
  Planned sphere (D)n.s.−0.024n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
  Planned cylinder (D)0.56%n.s.−1.05%n.s.−0.25%n.s.
  Gender (M/F)n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
  Eye (OD/OS)n.s.n.s.n.s.0.121n.s.n.s.
  K-readings (D)n.s.n.s.1.21%n.s.n.s.n.s.
  Pachymetry (µm)n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
Intrinsic
  Optical zone (mm)n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
  Cap diameter (mm)−1.73%n.s.8.47%n.s.3.37%n.s.
  Cap thickness (µm)−0.23%−0.035n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
  Minimum lenticule thickness (µm)n.s.0.0150.52%n.s.n.s.n.s.
  Laser energy (VisuMax index), 1 unit = 5 nJn.s.0.017n.s.0.041n.s.0.029
  Intercept−0.7160.083n.s.−0.317

Results of the Seasonal Variations

SeasonKoreaThe NetherlandsGermanyOverall




Relative DeviationArithmetic DeviationRelative DeviationArithmetic DeviationRelative DeviationArithmetic DeviationRelative DeviationArithmetic Deviation
Spring1.51%0.07n.s.n.s.1.47%0.081.49%0.07
Summer−2.23%−0.08n.s.0.06−0.98%n.s.−1.62%−0.02
Falln.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
Winter−0.76%−0.05n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
Authors

From SCHWIND eye-tech-solutions, Kleinostheim, Germany (SA-M); Eyereum, Seoul, South Korea (DYSK); Bergman Clinics, Utrecht, The Netherlands (MHAL); Zentrum für Refraktive Chirurgie, Munster, Germany (ST); and Ruhr-University, Bochum, Germany (ST).

Dr. Arba-Mosquera is employee of SCHWIND eye-tech-solutions. Drs. Kang and Taneri are consultants to Carl Zeiss Meditec. The remaining author has no financial or proprietary interest in the materials presented herein.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Study concept and design (SA-M, DYSK); data collection (DYSK, MHAL, ST); analysis and interpretation of data (SA-M, DYSK, ST); writing the manuscript (SA-M, ST); critical revision of the manuscript (DSYK, MHAL, ST); statistical expertise (SA-M); administrative, technical, or material support (DSYK)

Correspondence: Samuel Arba-Mosquera, PhD, SCHWIND eye-tech-solutions, Research & Development, Mainparkstrasse 6-10, Kleinostheim, Bayern D-63801, Germany. E-mail: sarbamo@cofis.es

Received: June 27, 2019
Accepted: October 02, 2019

10.3928/1081597X-20191003-01

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents