Visual Recovery Speed In Smile Vs. Lasik: A Prospective Study On Healing And Patient Satisfaction
Published 2025 - 43rd Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: PO705 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/y5yg-4a63
Authors: Sonu Goel* 1 , madhav goel 2 , purnima dhand 1
1ophthalmology ,anand eye hospital ,jaipur ,India, 2ophthalmology ,sms medical college ,jaipur ,India
Purpose
to compare the visual recovery speed, healing process, and patient-reported satisfaction between Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) and Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) in the early postoperative period.
Setting
This prospective, comparative study was conducted at NMC ROYAL SHARJAH. All procedures were performed by experienced refractive surgeons using the VisuMax femtosecond laser (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany) for SMILE and the EX500 excimer laser (Alcon, USA) for LASIK between jan 2024 and june 2024
Methods
A total of 100 eyes from 100 patients were included, with 50 eyes undergoing SMILE and 50 eyes undergoing LASIK. Patients were matched for age, refractive error, and corneal thickness. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), contrast sensitivity, and patient-reported visual quality (glare, halos, night vision disturbances) were assessed at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively
Results
On postoperative day 1, UDVA was significantly better in the LASIK group (mean 20/20 vs. 20/32, p < 0.01). However, by week 1, the difference was no longer statistically significant (20/20 in both groups, p = 0.12). At 1 month and 3 months, visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and higher-order aberrations were comparable in both groups. Patient-reported night vision disturbances and glare were higher in the LASIK group at 1 month (p < 0.01), while dry eye symptoms were more frequent in LASIK at all follow-ups up to 6 months (p < 0.001). Corneal nerve regeneration was su
Conclusions
While LASIK provides faster visual recovery in the first few days, SMILE offers comparable long-term visual outcomeswith a lower incidence of dry eye, glare, and night vision disturbances. These findings highlight SMILE’s advantages as a minimally invasive alternative to LASIK, particularly for patients concerned about ocular surface health. Further research on long-term corneal nerve recovery and visual quality is warranted to refine patient selection criteria.