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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England) England), 2020-02, Vol.98 (1), p.e72-e80 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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 & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2019 Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & 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 |