| Ref. |
Author, year |
Method |
Sample |
Outcome |
| 38 |
Vestergaard AH et al. 2014 |
Prospective, randomized, single-masked clinical trial. Included patients treated for moderate to high myopia with FLEX in one eye and SMILE in the other |
35 patients, 70 eyes |
No significant differences between FLEX and SMILE at 6 months in terms of pachymetry, CH and CRF |
| 39 |
Agca A et al. 2014 |
Prospective comparative case series. One eye of each patient was treated with SMILE, and the fellow eye with femto-LASIK |
30 patients, 60 eyes |
No differences between femto-LASIK and SMILE treatments at 6 months in terms of postoperative CH or CRF. |
| 40 |
Penderson IB et al. 2014 |
Retrospective evaluation of corneal biomechanical properties after LASIK, ReLEx flex, and ReLEx SMILE using Corvis ST and ORA on patients treated for high myopia (-10.5 to -5.5 diopters) more than one year previously |
LASIK (35 eyes), ReLEx flex (31 eyes), and ReLEx smile (29 eyes). A control group included 31 healthy eyes |
LASIK and ReLEx flex and the flap-free ReLEx smile result in similar reduction in corneal biomechanics when evaluated by Corvis ST and ORA. |
| 41 |
Shen Y et al. 2014 |
Retrospective study measuring corneal deformation parameters using CorVis ST between groups |
17 eyes of 17 patients after SMILE, 18 eyes of 18 patients after LASEK17 eyes of 17 patients after femtosecond LASIK |
No significant difference in deformation amplitude and applanation time (applanation 1) between the LASEK and SMILE groups nor between the SMILE and femtosecond-LASIK groups.
3 months after surgery |
| 42 |
Wang D et al. 2014 |
Prospective study. Patients grouped according to SMILE or LASIK and -6.00 diopters (D) or less (> -6.00 D) or myopia greater than -6.00 D (>-6.00 D). CH, CRF, and 37 waveform parameters were recorded using ORA and compared preoperatively and at 1 week and 1 and 3 months postoperatively. |
187 eyes had SMILE, 79 eyes had LASIK |
In myopia greater than -6.00 D, the CH, CRF, p1area, and p2area decreased significantly more in LASIK than in SMILE |
| 43 |
Wu D et al. 2014 |
Prospective comparative case series. Patients had SMILE or femtosecond LASIK. CH, CRF and 37 other biomechanical waveform parameters were quantitatively assessed with the Ocular Response Analyzer preoperatively and 1 week and , 3, and 6 months postoperatively. |
40 eyes had SMILE, 40 eyes had femtosecond LASIK |
CH and CRF values in the SMILE Group were significantly higher than those in the femtosecond LASIK group 3 months and 6 months postoperatively |
