English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Purpose. To compare the long-term safety, efficacy, predictability, and refractive stability following SMILE versus SMILE combined with accelerated cross-linking (SMILE XTRA), and to specifically study the regression patterns following the two procedures. Methods. This retrospective study included 54 eyes of SMILE and 54 eyes of SMILE XTRA treated for normal and borderline cases of myopia/myopic astigmatism, respectively, based on certain predefined topographic features and risk factors. Patients in both the groups were matched for age and refractive error. The mean postoperative follow-up for the SMILE group was 22.18 ± 10.41 months and the SMILE XTRA group was 21.81 ± 10.19 months. Results. At the end of follow-up, the mean sphere, cylinder, and SE reduced to −0.03, −0.09, and −0.08 D in the SMILE group and −0.06, −0.15, and −0.13 D in the SMILE XTRA group. 96% and 93% eyes remained within ±0.50 D in SMILE and SMILE XTRA groups, respectively, and 94% eyes maintained an UDVA of 20/20 or better in the SMILE as well as SMILE XTRA groups. Safety and efficacy indices for the SMILE group were 1.03 and 1.00. For the SMILE XTRA group, the safety and efficacy indices were 1.00 and 0.99. No eye in either group had postoperative ectasia or enhancement performed for significant residual refractive error. Conclusion. Both the SMILE and SMILE XTRA groups exhibited comparable visual outcomes, safety, and efficacy. Contrary to the belief, combination of prophylactic CXL with SMILE did not result in a hyperopic shift in the long term. No eye in either group encountered postoperative ectasia; however, further follow-up is suggested to establish the long-term effects on refractive and corneal stability following SMILE XTRA, as all the eyes treated in this group were borderline.

Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes and Refractive Stability following SMILE versus SMILE Combined with Accelerated Cross-Linking (SMILE XTRA)