Suction stability management in small incision lenticule extraction: incidence and outcomes of suction loss in 4000 consecutive procedures

Purpose To report the incidence and outcomes of suction loss during small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Methods The incidence of suction loss was measured over 4000 consecutive SMILE procedures and categorized by cause, the interface in which suction was lost and management (restart/continu...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England) England), 2020-02, Vol.98 (1), p.e72-e80
Hauptverfasser: Reinstein, Dan Z., Archer, Timothy J., Vida, Ryan S., Carp, Glenn I.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e80
container_issue 1
container_start_page e72
container_title Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England)
container_volume 98
creator Reinstein, Dan Z.
Archer, Timothy J.
Vida, Ryan S.
Carp, Glenn I.
description Purpose To report the incidence and outcomes of suction loss during small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Methods The incidence of suction loss was measured over 4000 consecutive SMILE procedures and categorized by cause, the interface in which suction was lost and management (restart/continue SMILE, re‐SMILE thinner cap, convert to laser in‐situ keratomileusis [LASIK]). One‐year outcomes were compared to the fellow eye where no suction loss occurred. Results There were 20 cases of suction loss (0.50%): during the lenticule interface in seven eyes, lenticule side cut in one eye, cap interface in nine eyes and small incision for three eyes. Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) was continued in seven eyes, thinner cap SMILE in four eyes, LASIK in eight eyes, and the small incision was manually completed in one eye. Suction loss was caused by a Bell's reflex in 10 eyes, fixation light tracking in six eyes, patient anxiety in two eyes, a nociceptive reflex in one eye and false suction in one eye. There was no difference in results for suction loss and fellow eyes, respectively: uncorrected distance visual acuity was 20/20 or better in 100% in both groups, spherical equivalent was within ±0.50 D in 85% and 79%, one line loss of corrected distance visual acuity in 5% and 0%, and no eyes lost two lines. Conclusion Suction loss can be managed depending on the interface during which suction is lost. Treatment was completed on the same day in all instances. Visual and refractive outcomes were unaffected compared to the fellow eye in this series.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/aos.14215
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2280521423</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2344157482</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4225-c28618c786d6bb1e4d470257a5f1f2a1adba9818412850a902de7f577e853c33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1u1DAUhS1ERX9gwQsgS2zoYlrbsWMPu1EFFGmkLtoFO-vGuQFXTlziuGVegafGmRkGCane-Or48_H1PYS85eyCl3UJMV1wKbh6QU64VmpR6dq8PNTq2zE5TemesZrXtXxFjisupTHanJDft9lNPg40TdD44KcN7WGA79jjMFFf9B5CKIXzacZCkb3LASn-mkbY3v24PW5xcEhhaGnMk4s9Jho7mvb2IaY020nGGHVxSOjy5B-RPozRYZtHTK_JUQch4Zv9fkbuPn-6u7perG--fL1arRdOCqEWTpiaG6dN3dZNw1G2UjOhNKiOdwI4tA0sDTeSC6MYLJloUXdKazSqclV1Rs53tj8g2IfR9zBubARvr1drO2tMLGutK_bIC_thx5Yuf2ZMk-19chgCDBhzskIYpkQZ_Wz7_j_0PuZxKB-xopKSKy2N-Pe4G8tARuwOHXBm5yxtydJusyzsu71jbnpsD-Tf8ApwuQOefMDN8052dXO7s_wDTdKovg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2344157482</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Suction stability management in small incision lenticule extraction: incidence and outcomes of suction loss in 4000 consecutive procedures</title><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Reinstein, Dan Z. ; Archer, Timothy J. ; Vida, Ryan S. ; Carp, Glenn I.</creator><creatorcontrib>Reinstein, Dan Z. ; Archer, Timothy J. ; Vida, Ryan S. ; Carp, Glenn I.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose To report the incidence and outcomes of suction loss during small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Methods The incidence of suction loss was measured over 4000 consecutive SMILE procedures and categorized by cause, the interface in which suction was lost and management (restart/continue SMILE, re‐SMILE thinner cap, convert to laser in‐situ keratomileusis [LASIK]). One‐year outcomes were compared to the fellow eye where no suction loss occurred. Results There were 20 cases of suction loss (0.50%): during the lenticule interface in seven eyes, lenticule side cut in one eye, cap interface in nine eyes and small incision for three eyes. Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) was continued in seven eyes, thinner cap SMILE in four eyes, LASIK in eight eyes, and the small incision was manually completed in one eye. Suction loss was caused by a Bell's reflex in 10 eyes, fixation light tracking in six eyes, patient anxiety in two eyes, a nociceptive reflex in one eye and false suction in one eye. There was no difference in results for suction loss and fellow eyes, respectively: uncorrected distance visual acuity was 20/20 or better in 100% in both groups, spherical equivalent was within ±0.50 D in 85% and 79%, one line loss of corrected distance visual acuity in 5% and 0%, and no eyes lost two lines. Conclusion Suction loss can be managed depending on the interface during which suction is lost. Treatment was completed on the same day in all instances. Visual and refractive outcomes were unaffected compared to the fellow eye in this series.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1755-375X</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1395-3931</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1755-3768</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/aos.14215</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31448878</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Acuity ; Anxiety ; Bell's reflex ; Eye ; Human health and pathology ; LASIK ; Life Sciences ; Pain perception ; SMILE ; Suction ; suction loss ; Visual acuity</subject><ispartof>Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England), 2020-02, Vol.98 (1), p.e72-e80</ispartof><rights>2019 Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2019 Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4225-c28618c786d6bb1e4d470257a5f1f2a1adba9818412850a902de7f577e853c33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4225-c28618c786d6bb1e4d470257a5f1f2a1adba9818412850a902de7f577e853c33</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6747-7311</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Faos.14215$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Faos.14215$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,1427,27901,27902,45550,45551,46384,46808</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31448878$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-02967730$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Reinstein, Dan Z.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Archer, Timothy J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vida, Ryan S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carp, Glenn I.</creatorcontrib><title>Suction stability management in small incision lenticule extraction: incidence and outcomes of suction loss in 4000 consecutive procedures</title><title>Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England)</title><addtitle>Acta Ophthalmol</addtitle><description>Purpose To report the incidence and outcomes of suction loss during small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Methods The incidence of suction loss was measured over 4000 consecutive SMILE procedures and categorized by cause, the interface in which suction was lost and management (restart/continue SMILE, re‐SMILE thinner cap, convert to laser in‐situ keratomileusis [LASIK]). One‐year outcomes were compared to the fellow eye where no suction loss occurred. Results There were 20 cases of suction loss (0.50%): during the lenticule interface in seven eyes, lenticule side cut in one eye, cap interface in nine eyes and small incision for three eyes. Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) was continued in seven eyes, thinner cap SMILE in four eyes, LASIK in eight eyes, and the small incision was manually completed in one eye. Suction loss was caused by a Bell's reflex in 10 eyes, fixation light tracking in six eyes, patient anxiety in two eyes, a nociceptive reflex in one eye and false suction in one eye. There was no difference in results for suction loss and fellow eyes, respectively: uncorrected distance visual acuity was 20/20 or better in 100% in both groups, spherical equivalent was within ±0.50 D in 85% and 79%, one line loss of corrected distance visual acuity in 5% and 0%, and no eyes lost two lines. Conclusion Suction loss can be managed depending on the interface during which suction is lost. Treatment was completed on the same day in all instances. Visual and refractive outcomes were unaffected compared to the fellow eye in this series.</description><subject>Acuity</subject><subject>Anxiety</subject><subject>Bell's reflex</subject><subject>Eye</subject><subject>Human health and pathology</subject><subject>LASIK</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Pain perception</subject><subject>SMILE</subject><subject>Suction</subject><subject>suction loss</subject><subject>Visual acuity</subject><issn>1755-375X</issn><issn>1395-3931</issn><issn>1755-3768</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kc1u1DAUhS1ERX9gwQsgS2zoYlrbsWMPu1EFFGmkLtoFO-vGuQFXTlziuGVegafGmRkGCane-Or48_H1PYS85eyCl3UJMV1wKbh6QU64VmpR6dq8PNTq2zE5TemesZrXtXxFjisupTHanJDft9lNPg40TdD44KcN7WGA79jjMFFf9B5CKIXzacZCkb3LASn-mkbY3v24PW5xcEhhaGnMk4s9Jho7mvb2IaY020nGGHVxSOjy5B-RPozRYZtHTK_JUQch4Zv9fkbuPn-6u7perG--fL1arRdOCqEWTpiaG6dN3dZNw1G2UjOhNKiOdwI4tA0sDTeSC6MYLJloUXdKazSqclV1Rs53tj8g2IfR9zBubARvr1drO2tMLGutK_bIC_thx5Yuf2ZMk-19chgCDBhzskIYpkQZ_Wz7_j_0PuZxKB-xopKSKy2N-Pe4G8tARuwOHXBm5yxtydJusyzsu71jbnpsD-Tf8ApwuQOefMDN8052dXO7s_wDTdKovg</recordid><startdate>202002</startdate><enddate>202002</enddate><creator>Reinstein, Dan Z.</creator><creator>Archer, Timothy J.</creator><creator>Vida, Ryan S.</creator><creator>Carp, Glenn I.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>VOOES</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6747-7311</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202002</creationdate><title>Suction stability management in small incision lenticule extraction: incidence and outcomes of suction loss in 4000 consecutive procedures</title><author>Reinstein, Dan Z. ; Archer, Timothy J. ; Vida, Ryan S. ; Carp, Glenn I.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4225-c28618c786d6bb1e4d470257a5f1f2a1adba9818412850a902de7f577e853c33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Acuity</topic><topic>Anxiety</topic><topic>Bell's reflex</topic><topic>Eye</topic><topic>Human health and pathology</topic><topic>LASIK</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Pain perception</topic><topic>SMILE</topic><topic>Suction</topic><topic>suction loss</topic><topic>Visual acuity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Reinstein, Dan Z.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Archer, Timothy J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vida, Ryan S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carp, Glenn I.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL) (Open Access)</collection><jtitle>Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Reinstein, Dan Z.</au><au>Archer, Timothy J.</au><au>Vida, Ryan S.</au><au>Carp, Glenn I.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Suction stability management in small incision lenticule extraction: incidence and outcomes of suction loss in 4000 consecutive procedures</atitle><jtitle>Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England)</jtitle><addtitle>Acta Ophthalmol</addtitle><date>2020-02</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>98</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>e72</spage><epage>e80</epage><pages>e72-e80</pages><issn>1755-375X</issn><issn>1395-3931</issn><eissn>1755-3768</eissn><abstract>Purpose To report the incidence and outcomes of suction loss during small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Methods The incidence of suction loss was measured over 4000 consecutive SMILE procedures and categorized by cause, the interface in which suction was lost and management (restart/continue SMILE, re‐SMILE thinner cap, convert to laser in‐situ keratomileusis [LASIK]). One‐year outcomes were compared to the fellow eye where no suction loss occurred. Results There were 20 cases of suction loss (0.50%): during the lenticule interface in seven eyes, lenticule side cut in one eye, cap interface in nine eyes and small incision for three eyes. Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) was continued in seven eyes, thinner cap SMILE in four eyes, LASIK in eight eyes, and the small incision was manually completed in one eye. Suction loss was caused by a Bell's reflex in 10 eyes, fixation light tracking in six eyes, patient anxiety in two eyes, a nociceptive reflex in one eye and false suction in one eye. There was no difference in results for suction loss and fellow eyes, respectively: uncorrected distance visual acuity was 20/20 or better in 100% in both groups, spherical equivalent was within ±0.50 D in 85% and 79%, one line loss of corrected distance visual acuity in 5% and 0%, and no eyes lost two lines. Conclusion Suction loss can be managed depending on the interface during which suction is lost. Treatment was completed on the same day in all instances. Visual and refractive outcomes were unaffected compared to the fellow eye in this series.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>31448878</pmid><doi>10.1111/aos.14215</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6747-7311</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1755-375X
ispartof Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England), 2020-02, Vol.98 (1), p.e72-e80
issn 1755-375X
1395-3931
1755-3768
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2280521423
source Wiley Free Content; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Acuity
Anxiety
Bell's reflex
Eye
Human health and pathology
LASIK
Life Sciences
Pain perception
SMILE
Suction
suction loss
Visual acuity
title Suction stability management in small incision lenticule extraction: incidence and outcomes of suction loss in 4000 consecutive procedures
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T03%3A29%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Suction%20stability%20management%20in%20small%20incision%20lenticule%20extraction:%20incidence%20and%20outcomes%20of%20suction%20loss%20in%204000%20consecutive%20procedures&rft.jtitle=Acta%20ophthalmologica%20(Oxford,%20England)&rft.au=Reinstein,%20Dan%20Z.&rft.date=2020-02&rft.volume=98&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=e72&rft.epage=e80&rft.pages=e72-e80&rft.issn=1755-375X&rft.eissn=1755-3768&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/aos.14215&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E2344157482%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2344157482&rft_id=info:pmid/31448878&rfr_iscdi=true