Page 93 - JSOM Winter 2024

3. Stanley PF, Tanzer DJ, Schallhorn SC. Laser refractive surgery in 13. Klokova OA, Sakhnov SN, Geydenrikh MS, Damashauskas RO.
the United States Navy. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008;19:321– Quality of life after refractive surgery: ReLEx SMILE vs Femto-
324. doi:10.1097/ICU.0b013e3283009ee3 LASIK. Clin Ophthalmol. 2019;13:561–570. doi:10.2147/OPTH.
4. Bower KS, Burka JM, Subramanian PS, Stutzman RD, Mines MJ, S170277
Rabin JC. Night firing range performance following photorefrac- 14. Han T, Xu Y, Han X, Shang J, Zeng L, Zhou X. Quality of life
tive keratectomy and laser in situ keratomileusis. Mil Med. 2006; impact of refractive correction (QIRC) results three years after
171(6):468–471. doi:10.7205/milmed.171.6.468 SMILE and FS-LASIK. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):
5. Sia RK, Ryan DS, Stutzman RD, et al. Wavefront-guided versus 107. doi:10.1186/s12955-020-01362-8
wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy: clinical out- 15. Shams N, Mobaraki H, Kamali M, Jafarzadehpour E. Compar-
comes and patient satisfaction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41: ison of quality of life between myopic patients with spectacles
2152–2164. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.10.054 and contact lenses, and patients who have undergone refractive
6. Schallhorn SC, Kaupp SE, Tanzer DJ, Tidwell J, Laurent J, Bourque surgery. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2015;27(1–2):32–36. doi:10.1016/j.
LB. Pupil size and quality of vision after LASIK. Ophthalmology. joco.2015.10.004
2003;110(8):1606–1614. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00494-9 16. Food and Drug Administration. Focus area: patient-reported out-
7. Taneri S, Knepper J, Rost A, Dick HB. PRK, LASIK, SMILE comes and other clinical outcome assessments. Updated Septem-
im langzeitverlauf [Long-term outcomes of PRK, LASIK and ber 6, 2022. Accessed November 30, 2022. https://www.fda.gov/
SMILE]. Ophthalmologe. 2022;119(2):163–169. doi:10.1007/ science-research/focus-areas-regulatory-science-report/focus-
s00347-021-01449-7 area-patient-reported-outcomes-and-other-clinical-outcome-
8. Sia RK, Ryan DS, Rivers BA, et al. Vision-related quality of life assessments
and perception of military readiness and capabilities following re- 17. Ziaei H, Katibeh M, Sabbaghi M, Yaseri M, Eskandari A. Vision
fractive surgery among active duty U.S. military service members. related quality of life in myopia; photorefractive keratectomy ver-
J Refract Surg. 2018;34(9):597–603. doi:10.3928/1081597X- sus nonsurgical optical correction. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2012;7
20180723-01 (3):219–224.
9. Moshirfar M, Thomson AC, West WB Jr, et al. Initial single-site 18. Lang M, Cao KW, Liu T, Zhu Y, Ye J. Five-year results of refractive
experience using SMILE for the treatment of astigmatism in my- outcomes and vision-related quality of life after SMILE for the
opic eyes and comparison of astigmatic outcomes with existing correction of high myopia. Int J Ophthalmol. 2021;14(9):1365–
literature. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:3551–3562. doi:10.2147/ 1370. doi:10.18240/ijo.2021.09.11.
OPTH.S276899 19. Eydelman M, Hilmantel G, Tarver ME, et al. Symptoms and sat-
10. Gomel N, Negari S, Frucht-Pery J, Wajnsztajn D, Strassman E, isfaction of patients in the patient-reported outcomes with laser
Solomon A. Predictive factors for efficacy and safety in refrac- in situ keratomileusis (PROWL) studies. JAMA Ophthalmol.
tive surgery for myopia. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(12):e0208608. doi: 2017;135(1):13–22. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.4587
10.1371/journal.pone.0208608 20. Wei R, Li M, Niu L, et al. Comparison of visual outcomes after
11. Ang M, Farook M, Htoon HM, Mehta JS. Randomized clinical non-toric and toric implantable collamer lens V4c for myopia
trial comparing femtosecond LASIK and small-incision lenticule and astigmatism. Acta Ophthalmol. 2021;99(5):511–518. doi:
extraction. Ophthalmology. 2020;127(6):724–730. doi:10.1016/ 10.1111/aos.14652
j.ophtha.2019.09.006 21. Ang M, Gatinel D, Reinstein DZ, Mertens E, Alió Del Barrio
12. Li M, Zhang L, Song Y, et al. Effect of wavefront aberrations JL, Alió JL. Refractive surgery beyond 2020. Eye (Lond). 2021;
on night vision problems and mesopic contrast threshold af- 35(2):362–382. doi:10.1038/s41433-020-1096-5
ter SMILE. J Refract Surg. 2021;37(7):446–452. doi:10.3928/
1081597X-20210405-02 PMID: 39641610; DOI: 10.55460/28X4-JH1L

SUPPLEMENTAL TABLE 1 Attempted Correction by Type of Treatment
Treatment, mean (SD) P value*
LASIK PRK SMILE Overall LASIK vs. PRK LASIK vs. SMILE PRK vs. SMILE
Attempted sphere, D –3.29 (1.62) –2.91 (1.51) –2.90 (1.51) .083 .054 .250 1
Attempted cylinder, D –0.74 (.62) –0.60 (0.57) –0.42 (0.78) <.001 .071 .001 .052
6-mo postop MSE, D –0.09 (.33) 0.06 (0.37) 0.03 (0.37) .022 <.001 .065 1
*P values for overall tests are based on one-way ANOVA test. P values for pairwise comparisons are based on the post-hoc Bonferroni method
for the ANOVA test.
LASIK = laser in situ keratomileusis; PRK = photorefractive keratectomy; SMILE = small incision lenticule extraction; D = diopter; MSE = man-
ifest spherical equivalent.
*P values for overall tests are based on one-way ANOVA test. P values for pairwise comparisons are based on the post-hoc Bonferroni method
for the ANOVA test.
LASIK = laser in situ keratomileusis; PRK = photorefractive keratectomy; SMILE = small incision lenticule extraction; D = diopter; MSE = man-
ifest spherical equivalent.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Refractive Surgery | 91