ESCRS - FP06.10 - 3 MONTH CONTRALATERAL EYE COMPARISON RAY TRACING-GUIDED LASIK VS SMILE PRO FOR MYOPIA, ALL EYES TREATED WITH THE RAY TRACING REFRACTION.

3 MONTH CONTRALATERAL EYE COMPARISON RAY TRACING-GUIDED LASIK VS SMILE PRO FOR MYOPIA, ALL EYES TREATED WITH THE RAY TRACING REFRACTION.

Published 2026 - 30th ESCRS Winter Meeting

Reference: FP06.10 | Type: Free Paper | DOI: 10.82333/d2zy-5j09

Authors: A. John Kanellopoulos* 1 , Alexander John Kanellopoulos 2

1Ophthalmology,Laservision ASU,Athens,Greece;Ophthalmology,NYU Med School,New York,United States, 2Ophthalmology,Laservision ASU,Athens,Greece

Purpose

The relative efficacy and precision of these two leading refractive procedures. In doing so, it also explores whether the theoretical advantages of ray tracing-guided LASIK (wavelight plus-recently FDA approved) translate into potentially measurable clinical ascendency over SMILE Pro-with the upgraded femtosecond platform available outside the US.

Setting

The Laservision Clinical and Research Institute, Athens, Greece

Methods

This contralateral eye study included 120 eyes of 60 patients: one eye was treated with RayTracing LASIK (wavelight plus. Alcon/Wavelight, Erlagen Germany), while the fellow eye was treated with SMILE (SMILE pro, Visumax 800, Zeiss, Jena, Germany)) using the RayTracing calculated refraction (SightMap, Alcon/Wavelight). The following parameters were evaluated preoperatively and up to 3 months postoperatively: % of eyes with 1 line of vision gained in LogMAR, UDVA, CDVA, refractive error, spherical equivalent (SE), defocus equivalent (DE), high order aberrations (HOA): total: RMSh and spherical aberration, and contrast sensitivity,

Results

At 3 months 81.66% of the wavelight plus LASIK eyes gained one or more lines of UDVA compared to preop CDVA vs. 31.67% of the SMILE Pro eyes. Mean postop UDVA: -0.17 ± 0.06 LogMAR vs. -0.10 ± 0.04 LogMAR respectively. 20/20 UDVA 100% vs. 100%, 20/12.5 98.33% vs. 81.67%. Mean pre op VA was -0.10 ± 0.04 LogMAR in both groups. All eyes were within ±0.50 D of target refraction; both groups; within ±0.25 D of target refraction the wavelight plus LASIK group (100%) over the SMILE Pro group: 76.67% (P < 0.001). Mean pre op MRSE was equivalent nearly equivalent between both groups 4.19 ± 1.86 and -4.18 ± 1.87 for wavelight plus and SMILE Pro respectively

Conclusion

Ray-tracing LASIK (wavelight plus) appears to offer superior visual outcomes in lines of vision gained to Smile Pro. Whilst demonstrating lower defocus equivalent, lower reduction in mesopic contrast sensitivity and high order aberrations including spherical aberration