This study compares the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of three intraocular implants (IOL): Tecnis Synergy IOL, AcrySof IQ PanOptix Trifocal, and Tecnis Symfony EDOF IOL. Participants achieving 20/20 or better uncorrected binocular visual acuity were as follows: Synergy—67% distance, 64% intermediate, and 47% near; PanOptix—73% distance, 73% intermediate, and 50% near; and Symfony—63% distance, 75% intermediate, and 22% near. Symfony demonstrated superior intermediate visual acuity compared to Synergy (p = 0.0182) for those achieving 20/25 or better. Both Synergy and PanOptix showed superiority over Symfony for near visual acuity (p < 0.0001). Halos were statistically more common in Synergy participants compared to PanOptix (p = 0.0013) and Symfony (p < 0.0001). Each trial lens outperformed its monofocal IOL in terms of independence from glasses or contacts, with Synergy and PanOptix showing statistical significance over Symfony. Comparing contrast sensitivities and defocus curves was challenging due to data variance and as such, standardization of United States Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA) data reporting is key for better comparison of outcomes among different IOL platforms.

Background: This retrospective chart review compared the higher-order aberrations (HOAs) among photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) alongside changes in spherical equivalent (SEQ) and corneal shape (Q-value). Methods: Analyzing 371 myopic eyes, including 154 LASIK, 173 PRK, and 44 SMILE cases, Pentacam imaging was utilized pre-operatively and at one-year post-operative visits. Results: All procedures resulted in 100% of patients achieving an uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/40 or better, with 87% of LASIK and PRK, and 91% of SMILE patients having 20/20 or better. Significant increases in HOAs were observed across all procedures (p < 0.05), correlating positively with SEQ and Q-value changes (LASIK (0.686, p < 0.05), followed by PRK (0.4503, p < 0.05), and SMILE (0.386, p < 0.05)). Vertical coma and spherical aberration (SA) were the primary factors for heightened aberration magnitude among the procedures (p < 0.05), with the largest contribution in SMILE, which is likely attributed to the centration at the corneal apex. Notably, PRK showed insignificant changes in vertical coma (−0.197 µm ± 0.0168 to −0.192 µm ± 0.0198, p = 0.78), with an increase in oblique trefoil (p < 0.05). Conclusions: These findings underscore differences in HOAs among PRK, LASIK, and SMILE, helping to guide clinicians.

We present a retrospective, single-center report of one-year visual outcomes for Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) to treat myopia and myopic astigmatism, as well as to compare outcomes with other published literature, including results from the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA). A total of 405 eyes with a mean preoperative spherical equivalent of −5.54 diopters (D) underwent SMILE between April 2017 and April 2022. The outcomes measured included visual acuity, manifest refraction, vector analysis, and wavefront aberrometry at various time points, specifically pre-operative and twelve months post-operatively. Results were compared to other similar published studies of SMILE outcomes between 2012 and 2021. A total of 308 and 213 eyes were evaluated at three and twelve months, respectively. At twelve months, 79% of eyes achieved UDVA ≥ 20/20, and 99% had ≥20/40, with no patients losing ≥2 lines of vision. For accuracy, 84% of eyes were within 0.5 D of target SEQ, and 97% were within 1 D. Total corneal higher order aberrations (HOA) increased from 0.33 to 0.61 um. Significant change was found in vertical coma and spherical aberration at twelve months. SMILE remains a safe and effective treatment for myopia and myopic astigmatism. Clinical outcomes are likely to improve with increased surgeon experience and refinement of technology and nomograms.

Purpose: To compare 3 of the most common corneal refractive procedures; PRK, LASIK, and SMILE assessing ΔK/ΔSEQ ratio and its correlation with preoperative demographics including age, keratometry, pachymetry, cylinder value, and attempted myopic correction. The goal was to analyze the relative strength of each preoperative parameter in accounting for changes in ∆K/∆SEQ. Patients and Methods: A total of 370 eyes from 102 male and 97 female patients (173 eyes PRK, 153 LASIK, and 44 SMILE) with ages ranging from 20 to 51 underwent refractive surgery for myopia between − 0.25 and − 7.71 D manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE). All surgeries were performed at a single surgery center in Draper, Utah. The Pentacam was used for all optical measurements and data were gathered pre-operatively and then again 1-year post-operatively. Only patients who achieved emmetropia at a visual acuity of 20/25 or better were included. Results: The mean ΔK/ΔSEQ ratio for LASIK (0.839 ± 0.020) was significantly greater than that of PRK (0.775 ± 0.022) and SMILE (0.709 ± 0.046). Age was found to negatively correlate with ΔK/ΔSEQ for both LASIK (r = − 0.177) and SMILE (r = − 0.451) procedures. Pre-op keratometry was found to negatively correlate with ΔK/ΔSEQ for LASIK (r = − 0.202) but not for PRK or SMILE. Pre-op pachymetry was not correlated with ΔK/ΔSEQ for any of the procedures. Attempted myopic spherical equivalent (SEQ) correction was positively correlated with ΔK/ΔSEQ for LASIK (r = 0.236), PRK (r = 0.459), and SMILE (r = 0.304). Lastly, pre-op cylinder value was found to be correlated to ΔK/ΔSEQ in SMILE (r = − 0.367), but not in LASIK or PRK. Conclusion: The ΔK/ΔSEQ ratio not only differs depending on the procedure being done but also by pre-operative factors such as age, keratometry, attempted correction, and cylinder value. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that the attempted correction had the greatest effect on ∆K/∆SEQ out of all parameters in LASIK and PRK. For SMILE, age had the greatest predictive value of the change in ∆K/∆SEQ. While the exact effect of these parameters will vary by surgeon, all of these should be factored into a refractive surgeon’s nomograms in order to achieve optimal visual outcomes for their patients.