Functional Optical Zone and Visual Quality After Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction for High Myopic Astigmatism.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare the functional optical zone (FOZ) after correction of high myopic astigmatism and low myopic astigmatism by small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).

METHODS

In this prospective study, 30 patients who received SMILE for high myopic astigmatism correction (cylinderical diopters ≤ - 2.0D) were enrolled in the high astigmatism group (HA). The control group comprised 40 patients who underwent SMILE for low myopic astigmatism correction (LA; cylinderical diopters ≥ - 0.5D). FOZ was delineated as the area outlined by a change of 0.5D relative to the power at the corneal vertex on the total corneal refractive power map. An ellipse-fitting program (MatLab) was used to calculate some parameters of the FOZ. Visual quality evaluations were also conducted, including evaluations of wavefront aberrations, optical quality, and intraocular scattering, and completion of a quality of life questionnaire. All of the right eyes were analyzed in the study.

RESULTS

The preoperative average treatment spherical equivalent (- 5.77 ± 1.86D vs. - 6.49 ± 1.49D; P = 0.074), lenticule thickness (120.87 ± 23.27 μm vs. 118.53 ± 21.66 μm; P = 0.666), and programmed optical zone (6.58 ± 0.17 mm vs. 6.65 ± 0.18 mm; P = 0.104) were comparable between the HA and LA groups. The long axes (6.99 ± 1.14 mm vs. 5.32 ± 0.61 mm; P < 0.001), short axes (4.66 ± 0.96 mm vs. 4.23 ± 0.64 mm; P = 0.047), and area (25.90 ± 8.03 mm vs. 17.92 ± 4.36 mm; P < 0.001) of the FOZ were significantly larger in the HA group than in the LA group. The centration of the FOZ were comparable between the two groups (0.62 ± 0.25 mm vs. 0.70 ± 0.25 mm; P = 0.194). Postoperative spherical aberration was lower in the HA group than in the LA group (0.07 ± 0.05 μm vs. 0.14 ± 0.10 μm; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the ocular scatter index (0.80 ± 0.46 vs. 0.73 ± 0.46; P = 0.447), modulated transfer function (MTF) (37.89 ± 9.79 cpd vs. 39.78 ± 7.45 cpd; P = 0.363), and Strehl in two dimensions (Strehl2D) ratio (0.20 ± 0.04 vs. 0.20 ± 0.04; P = 0.363) between the HA group and the LA group. There were no significant differences in the scores on quality of life between the HA and LA groups (45.88 ± 2.15 vs. 45.64 ± 1.84; P = 0.423). Correlation analysis revealed that increase in the spherical aberration was significantly correlated with the long axes, short axes and area in the FOZ in both groups.

CONCLUSION

With a comparable optical design and attempted correction in SMILE, the eyes with higher myopic astigmatism correction achieved larger FOZ than the eyes with lower myopic astigmatism correction. Consequently, less spherical aberration induction was created after higher myopic astigmatism correction. This result may be associated with less corneal volume sculpted by laser for the higher astigmatism treatment, leading to fewer biochemical responses and les change in corneal aspherity. Good retinal image quality and satisfied quality of life were achieved at a comparable level in both study groups.