ESCRS - PO1044 - Comparison Of Two Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction Refractive Surgery Techniques: Smile Pro 1.0 And Smile Pro 2.0 In Astigmatism Correction

Comparison Of Two Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction Refractive Surgery Techniques: Smile Pro 1.0 And Smile Pro 2.0 In Astigmatism Correction

Published 2025 - 43rd Congress of the ESCRS

Reference: PO1044 | Type: Poster | DOI: 10.82333/nabj-2343

Authors: Tsung-Jen Wang 1 , Chao-Kai Chang 2 , I-Hung Lin* 3

1Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine,Taipei Medical University,Taipei,Taiwan, Province of China;Department of Ophthalmology,Taipei Medical University Hospital,Taipei,Taiwan, Province of China, 2Taipei Nobel Eye Institute,Taipei,Taiwan, Province of China, 3Taipei Nobel Eye Institute,Taipei,Taiwan, Province of China;Department of Ophthalmology,Taipei Medical University Hospital,Taipei,Taiwan, Province of China

Purpose

To compare the efficacy of SMILE Pro 1.0 and SMILE Pro 2.0 in correcting astigmatism.

Setting

Among the current small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) refractive surgeries performed using the VisuMax 800 system by Carl Zeiss Meditec, SMILE Pro 1.0 does not include automatic astigmatism correction. In contrast, SMILE Pro 2.0 incorporates the OcuLign system, which enables automatic astigmatism correction through iris recognition. This addition may enhance the efficacy of astigmatism correction, potentially reducing residual astigmatism postoperatively.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent SMILE Pro 1.0 (26 eyes) and SMILE Pro 2.0 (22 eyes) at Taipei Nobel Eye Institute. Preoperative and one-week postoperative data on visual acuity, myopia, and astigmatism were collected and analyzed using the Visulyze software provided by Carl Zeiss Meditec.

Results

At one week postoperatively, 65.4% of eyes treated with SMILE Pro 1.0 and 81.8% of those treated with SMILE Pro 2.0 achieved uncorrected visual acuity equal to or better than their preoperative best-corrected visual acuity. Additionally, 65.4% of SMILE Pro 1.0 cases and 86.4% of SMILE Pro 2.0 cases had residual astigmatism less than -0.50 diopters, while 92.3% and 100%, respectively, had residual astigmatism less than -1.00 diopters.

Conclusions

Compared to SMILE Pro 1.0, which lacks automatic astigmatism correction, SMILE Pro 2.0, equipped with the OcuLign system, demonstrated greater accuracy in astigmatism correction, leading to reduced residual astigmatism and improved postoperative visual quality at one week postoperatively.