Quality of vision after myopic refractive surgeries: SMILE, FS-LASIK, and ICL

Abstract

Abstract Background To characterize the quality of vision after SMILE, FS-LASIK, and ICL implantation and evaluate the related factors. Methods 131 eyes of 131 myopic patients (90 female, 41 male) who underwent refractive surgeries including SMILE (35 patients), FS-LASIK (73 patients), and ICL implantation (23 patients) were analyzed. The Quality of Vision questionnaires were completed 3 months after surgery, and the results were characterized and analyzed with baseline characteristics, treatment parameters, and postoperative refractive outcomes using logistic regression analysis to find out predicted factors. Results Mean age was 26.5 ± 4.6 years (range: 18 to 39 years) and mean preoperative spherical equivalent was − 4.95 ± 2.04 diopters (D) (range: -1.5 to -13.5). Safety and efficacy index was comparable between different techniques: the safety index was 1.21 ± 0.18, 1.22 ± 0.18, and 1.22 ± 0.16 and the efficacy index were 1.18 ± 0.20, 1.15 ± 0.17, 1.17 ± 0.15 for SMILE, FS-LASIK and ICL respectively. The mean overall QoV score was 13.40 ± 9.11, with mean frequency, severity, and bothersome score of 5.40 ± 3.29, 4.53 ± 3.04, and 3.48 ± 3.18 respectively, and there was no significant difference between different techniques. Overall, the symptom with the highest scores was glare, following fluctuation in vision and halos. Only the scores of halos were significantly different among different techniques (P < 0.000). Using ordinal regression analysis, mesopic pupil size was identified as a risk factor (OR = 1.63, P = 0.037), while postoperative UDVA was a protective factor (OR = 0.036, P = 0.037) for overall QoV scores. Using binary logistic regression analysis, we found that patients with larger mesopic pupil size had an increased risk to experience glare postoperatively; compared to ICL, patients who underwent SMILE or FS-LASIK tended to report fewer halos; patients with better postoperative UDVA were less likely to report blurred vision and focusing difficulty; with larger residual myopic sphere postoperatively, patients experienced focusing difficulties and difficulty judging distance or depth perception more frequently. Conclusions SMILE, FS-LASIK, and ICL had comparable visual outcomes. Overall, glare, fluctuation in vision, and halos were the most frequently experienced visual symptoms 3 months postoperatively. Patients with ICL implanted tended to report halos more frequently compared with SMILE and FS-LASIK. Mesopic pupil size, postoperative UDVA, and postoperative residual myopic sphere were predicted factors for reported visual symptoms.