ESCRS - FP26.10 - Comparison Of Clinical Outcomes, Abberations, Quality Of Vision And Patient Satisfaction Following Smile Performed With Visumax 800 In One Eye And Visumax Fs Laser In The Contralateral Eye

Comparison Of Clinical Outcomes, Abberations, Quality Of Vision And Patient Satisfaction Following Smile Performed With Visumax 800 In One Eye And Visumax Fs Laser In The Contralateral Eye

Published 2025 - 43rd Congress of the ESCRS

Reference: FP26.10 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/2n6n-4538

Authors: Janne J. Jarvenpaa* 1

1Silmäsairaala Pilke,Vaasa,Finland;University of Turku,Turku,Finland

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes, ease of separation and patient satisfaction following SMILE performed with VISUMAX 800 in one eye and VISUMAX FS laser in the contralateral eye.

Setting

Phacoref Dept, Nethradhama Hospitals Pvt Ltd

Methods

A total of 30 patients undergoing bilateral SMILE procedures were  included, wherein both eyes of each patient were randomised to receive treatment with VM 800 in one eye and with VM laser in the contralateral eye for correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism.  Intra-operatively, docking time, suction time, laser time and surgical time were noted and post-operatively visual and refractive results, contrast sensitivity and patient satisfaction was assessed at 3 months post-op

Results

The mean docking time and surgical time was significantly lower in the VM800 group (46.53±11 sec and 4.52 ±2.33 min)  compared to VM group, 68.25±15 sec and 6.22±2.04 min respectively (p<0.001). No significant differences were observed in the first day and 3 months mean UDVA, CDVA, SE, post-op Higher Order Abberations (HOA), Objective Scatter Index (OSI), Modular Transfer Fucntion(MTF) and subjective contrast sensitivity at all spatial frequencies between the groups, (p >0.05). Patient’s scores regarding subjective symptoms were comparable, however, the overall satisfaction with the surgical experience was rated significantly better in the VM800 group 

Conclusions

: No significant differences were observed in clinical outcomes between the two laser systems, however, the surgical workflow and patient reported intra-operative experience was significantly better with VM 800.