Intraocular pressure changes and relationship. Corneal Biomechanics After SMILE and FS-LASIK

Cornea Intraocular Pressure Changes and Relationship With Corneal Biomechanics After SMILE and FS-LASIK Hua Li, Yan Wang, Rui Dou, Pinghui Wei, Jiamei Zhang, Wei Zhao, and Liuyang Li Tianjin Eye Hospital & Eye Institute, Tianjin Key Lab of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China Correspondence: Yan Wang, Tianjin Eye Hospital & Eye Institute, No. 4 Gansu Road, Heping District, Tianjin 300020, China; wangyan7143@vip.sina.com. Submitted: March 23, 2016 Accepted: June 27, 2016 Citation: Li H, Wang Y, Dou R, et al. Intraocular pressure changes and relationship with corneal biomechanics after SMILE and FS-LASIK. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57:4180 4186. DOI:10.1167/iovs.16-19615 PURPOSE. The purpose of this article was to evaluate intraocular pressure (IOP) changes and investigate the relationship with corneal biomechanics after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK). METHODS. A total of 193 eyes of 193 patients who underwent SMILE and FS-LASIK procedures were included in this retrospective study. Data were collected preoperatively and postoperatively, including Goldmann-correlated IOP (IOPg), corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc), corneal hysteresis (CH), and corneal resistance factor (CRF) by ocular response analyzer, noncontact intraocular pressure (IOP NCT ) by noncontact tonometer, and Ehlers, Shah, Dresden, Kohlhaas, Orssengo/Pye by the Pentacam corrected system. Changes in both groups and differences between groups were evaluated. Multiple linear regression models were constructed to explore factors influencing IOP changes. RESULTS. In SMILE, the IOPg, IOPcc, IOP NCT, and Kohlhaas decreased significantly at 1 month postoperatively (P < 0.01), whereas with the Ehlers formula they significantly increased (P < 0.01). IOPs decreased at 3 and 6 months compared with all preoperative values except Ehlers values (P < 0.01), but there was no significant difference between 3 and 6 months (P > 0.05). In FS-LASIK, the IOPg, IOPcc, and IOP NCT decreased significantly at 1 month (P < 0.01), whereas in the Ehlers and Shah formulas they significantly increased (P < 0.01). Compared with preoperative values, the IOPs decreased at 3 and 6 months except in the Ehlers and Shah formulas (P < 0.01). Only IOPg and IOPcc differed between 3 and 6 months (P < 0.05). The Ehlers and Shah formulas were closer to the preoperative IOP for both groups, with variation approximately 1 at 6 months postoperatively. Preoperative IOP, postoperative corneal resistance factor, corneal hysteresis, and flat keratometry were enrolled into the regression equations. CONCLUSIONS. IOP underestimation after SMILE or FS-LASIK was related to corneal biomechanics as well as preoperative IOP and flat keratometry. IOP after SMILE seem to remain more stable. Accordingly, the Ehlers and Shah formulas were closer to the preoperative IOP. It may be useful to estimate future IOP with the best-fit models after surgery. Keywords: intraocular pressure, small-incision lenticule extraction, femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis, corneal biomechanics Corneal refractive surgery, such as femtosecond laserassisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and smallincision lenticule extraction (SMILE), has emerged as having good efficacy, predictability, safety, and stability for surgical correction of low, moderate, and high myopia. 1 3 However, the central corneal thickness (CCT), the corneal curvature, and corneal biomechanics change after corneal refractive surgery, which may affect intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements. 4 Meanwhile, myopia is a risk factor for open-angle glaucoma, 5 and the routine application of steroids postoperatively will increase the risk of elevated IOP after corneal refractive surgery, even causing steroid-induced glaucoma. 6 In addition, elevated IOP is recognized as the most important risk factor for progressive glaucomatous damage. 7 Therefore, the accurate evaluation of IOP is a great concern for clinicians. Previous studies have showed IOP changes after some refractive surgeries, including photorefractive keratectomy, 8,9 laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy, 10,11 laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), 12 epipolis laser in situ keratomileusis, 13 and FS-LASIK. 14 Up to now, there has been no study regarding IOP change after SMILE, especially a comparison of IOPs between SMILE and FS-LASIK. We therefore decided to conduct a new retrospective study to evaluate IOP changes and the relationship with corneal biomechanics after both surgeries. METHODS Patients The institutional review board at Tianjin Eye Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, approved this study protocol, which adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients provided informed consent for surgery. iovs.arvojournals.org j ISSN: 1552-5783 4180 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Intraocular Pressure Changes After SMILE and FS-LASIK IOVS j August 2016 j Vol. 57 j No. 10 j 4181 This was a retrospective study performed at Tianjin Eye Hospital, and patients with myopia or myopic astigmatism who underwent SMILE or FS-LASIK were enrolled. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients older than 18 years; (2) absence of corneal, ocular, or systemic diseases; (3) refractive diopter maintained stable the past 2 years (change of 6 0.50 diopter); (4) patients who wore soft contact lens were off contact lenses for at least 2 weeks and off rigid contact lenses for at least 4 weeks; (5) preoperative noncontact intraocular pressure (IOP NCT ) less than 21 ; (6) no family history of glaucoma; (7) postoperative IOP NCT increase less than 7 11,15 ; (8) and no use of IOP-lowering medications before or after refractive surgery. From a total of 193 eyes, 97 eyes of 97 patients underwent SMILE and 96 eyes of 96 patients underwent FS- LASIK. Measures Patients underwent preoperative measurements of uncorrected distance visual acuity; corrected distance visual acuity; manifest and cycloplegic refractions; IOP NCT, Goldmanncorrelated IOP (IOPg), and corneal-compensated IOP (IOPcc) measured by an Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA), corneal topography, and Pentacam-corrected IOPs by the Scheimpflug tomography system (Pentacam; Oculus GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany). Patients were followed up at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery. Ocular Response Analyzer The ORA (Reichert, Inc., Depew, NY, USA) was used to measure corneal biomechanics and IOPs. Measured parameters are produced by the dynamic bidirectional applanator based on the two pressure measurements at applanation, P1 in the inward direction and P2 in the outward direction. The four parameters included (1) corneal hysteresis (CH), with CH ¼ a[p1-p2] 16 representing the ability of the cornea to absorb or dampen the applied force; (2) corneal resistance factor (CRF), with CRF ¼ a[p1-0.7p2] þ d described as the whole corneal resistance cumulative effect; (3) IOPg, with IOPg ¼ a[(p1-p2)/ 2] þ c, which were highly correlated with IOPg 17 ; (4) IOPcc, with IOPcc ¼ b[p2-0.43p1] þ e, which compensated for corneal properties in estimating IOP, producing a more accurate value in softer eyes and patients after refractive surgery, 18 where a, b, c, d, and e are calibration and regression constants. For each studied eye, three records were reserved with the signal score higher than 3.5, 19 and the average values were calculated. Noncontact Tonometer The noncontact tonometer (TX-F; Canon, Tokyo, Japan) was used to measure IOP avoiding contact and thus reducing the risk of infection. Some research suggested that IOP NCT had good repeatability and precision. 20 This tonometer records three readings and then calculates the average value automatically. Pentacam Scheimpflug Images The rotating Scheimpflug camera identified 25,000 true elevation points to measure corneal thickness and curvature. It also had five IOP correction formulas to correct IOP. This applied for measurements with the applanation tonometer as well as the NCT. When IOP NCT data were input into Pentacam, Ehlers, Shah, Dresden, Kohlhaas, and Orssengo/Pye formulas, corrected IOPs were generated. The following descriptions explains the calculation of IOP change for the correction formula: (1) Ehlers: IOP change ¼ 0.071 3 (545 corneal thickness measured ) 21 ; (2) Shah: IOP change ¼ 0.050 3 (550 corneal thickness measured ) 22 ; (3) Dresden: IOP change ¼ 0.040 3 (550 corneal thickness measured ) 23 ; 4) Kohlhaas: IOP change ¼ (540 corneal thickness measured )/71 þ (43 K)/2.7 þ 0.75 24 ; (5) Orssengo/Pye: IOP change ¼ IOP measured /K. 25 These formulas can correct the effects of corneal thickness and corneal curvature on IOP. Surgical Procedures All surgical procedures were performed by the same surgeon (Y.W.). After routine irrigation of the conjunctival sac and periocular sterilization, topical anesthesia was applied with two to three drops of oxybuprocaine hydrochloride (benoxyl; Santen, Inc., Osaka, Japan) twice before surgery, 5 minutes apart. SMILE Procedure SMILE was performed using only the femtosecond laser platform (Visumax; Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany), with typical pulse energy of approximately 140 to 150 nj and a pulse repetition rate of 500 khz. Four sequential cleavages were created to make an intrastromal lenticule and a small incision. The laser scanning order was, first, the posterior surface of the refractive lenticule, then the lenticule border, then the anterior surface of the lenticule and, finally, the sidecutting of the 3-mm width incision at the 12:00 location of the cornea. The lenticule diameter was 6.5 mm, and the side-cut angle was 908. The corneal cap thickness was 110 lm, and its diameter was 7.5 mm. A basement of 10 to 15 lm above the lenticule was added to remove the lenticule successfully. FS-LASIK Procedure In the FS-LASIK group, flap creation was performed using the same femtosecond laser with pulse energy at 165 to 175 nj. Flap diameter was 8.0 mm, and the thickness was 100 to 110 lm. The flap hinge was positioned nasally. After lifting the flap, ablation of the stromal bed was performed by an excimer laser system (Allegretto; WaveLight Laser Technologie AG, Erlangen, Germany). Finally, the corneal flap was repositioned. Patients of both groups were medicated with topical 0.5% levofloxacin (Cravit; Santen, Inc.) eye drops four times daily for 2 days, and 0.1% fluorometholone (FML; Flumetholon; Santen, Inc.) was applied four times daily for 2 weeks and then tapered down to once every 2 weeks. Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 20.0; IBM Corp., Chicago, IL, USA). In this study, changes were expressed by the D symbol and calculated as preoperative value minus 6- month postoperative value; the thickness of the tissue removed was expressed as lenticule thickness (LT) in the SMILE group and as ablation depth (AD) in the FS-LASIK group. Furthermore, because SMILE uses a unique corneal cutting algorithm, the LT was based on the algebraic sum of spherical power and astigmatic power. In the FS-LASIK group, the spherical equivalent was calculated. The normality of all data samples were checked with the Kolmogorov Smirnov test. The means of all of the IOPs at different examination points within a group were compared by repeated-measures analysis of variance, and the further pairwise comparison used least-significant difference. The Greenhouse Geisser correction was applied to degrees of freedom if sphericity was violated. The comparison of IOP

Intraocular Pressure Changes After SMILE and FS-LASIK IOVS j August 2016 j Vol. 57 j No. 10 j 4182 TABLE 1. Parameter Baseline Characteristics of the Eyes by Group SMILE Mean 6 SD FS-LASIK t /v 2 Value P Value Sex, n 0.433 0.510 Male 46 41 Female 51 55 Age, y 25 6 6 24 6 6 0.938 0.349 Spherical, D 5.33 6 1.46 5.61 6 1.75 1.211 0.227 Cylinder, D 0.52 6 0.69 0.67 6 0.49 1.804 0.073 MRSE, D 5.60 6 1.43 5.95 6 1.78 1.484 0.140 Mean K, D 43.45 6 1.37 43.40 6 1.21 0.283 0.778 CCT, lm 546.75 6 26.06 542.86 6 30.54 0.952 0.342 IOPg, 16.10 6 2.76 16.62 6 2.98 1.246 0.214 IOPcc, 16.80 6 2.62 17.17 6 2.60 0.983 0.327 IOP NCT, 15.84 6 2.12 15.58 6 2.56 0.741 0.460 Ehlers, 15.63 6 2.51 15.73 6 2.75 0.273 0.785 Shah, 15.92 6 2.24 15.94 6 2.51 0.073 0.941 Dresden, 16.01 6 2.15 15.86 6 2.45 0.442 0.659 Orssengo, 15.76 6 2.19 15.65 6 2.49 0.346 0.729 Kohlhaas, 16.31 6 2.05 16.14 6 2.44 0.535 0.593 LT or AD, lm 98.38 6 20.59 83.85 6 18.43 5.162 <0.001* SD, standard deviation; K, Scheimpflug keratometry; MRSE, manifest refraction spherical equivalent. * P < 0.05. changes between two groups were performed using independent t-tests. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was used to evaluate the correlations between variables. Multiple linear regressions were used to explore factors influencing IOP changes in both groups. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS Table 1 shows the preoperative baseline characteristics of patients by group. In the SMILE and FS-LASIK groups, 97 and 96 eyes completed postoperative examinations at 1 and 3 months, respectively; 44 and 38 of these eyes completed the 6- month follow-up. There were no significant differences between preoperative baseline characteristics. Change in the IOP Measurement Values and Corneal Parameters Over Time Table 2 shows IOPs, CH, CRF, CCT, flat keratometry (Kf), steep keratometry (Ks), and mean keratometry (Km) changes after SMILE and FS-LASIK. In SMILE, the IOPg, IOPcc, IOP NCT, and Kohlhaas decreased significantly at 1 month postoperatively (P < 0.01), whereas in the Ehlers formula, they significantly increased (P < 0.01). All of the IOPs showed severe decreases at the 3- and 6-month follow-ups except for those in Ehlers (P < 0.01), but there were no significant differences between 3 and 6 months (P > 0.05). CH, CRF, CCT, Kf, Ks, and Km decreased significantly at 1, 3, and 6 months when compared TABLE 2. The IOP Measurement Values and Relevant Parameter Variations Pre- and Post-SMILE and FS-LASIK P Value Surgeries IOPs Pre-IOP, Post-1M, Post-3M, Post-6M, Pre- vs. Post-1M Pre- vs. Post-3M Pre- vs. Post-6M Post-1M vs. Post-3M Post-3M vs. Post-6M SMILE IOPg 16.18 11.63 10.38 10.53 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.640 IOPcc 16.82 15.44 14.19 14.36 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.589 IOP NCT 15.79 11.89 11.02 10.97 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.002* 0.819 Ehlers 15.61 18.10 16.67 16.48 <0.001* 0.001* 0.007* <0.001* 0.389 Shah 15.96 16.55 15.27 15.13 0.071 0.008* 0.004* <0.001* 0.510 Dresden 15.92 15.60 14.41 14.28 0.312 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.564 Orssengo 15.73 15.49 14.02 13.86 0.515 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.561 Kohlhaas 16.28 15.25 14.21 14.09 0.002* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.573 CH 10.16 7.82 7.99 7.94 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.116 0.692 CRF 10.41 7.06 6.82 6.83 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.061 0.923 CCT 546.61 457.36 465.41 467.39 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.053 Kf 42.95 38.72 38.86 38.98 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.001* 0.005* Ks 43.99 39.48 39.64 39.77 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.002* 0.004* Km 43.47 39.08 39.25 39.37 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.005* FS-LASIK IOPg 16.85 12.18 10.64 9.97 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.018* IOPcc 17.25 16.28 14.68 13.99 0.002* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.014* IOP NCT 15.78 12.02 11.08 11.12 <0.001* <0.001* 0.001* <0.001* 0.533 Ehlers 15.76 19.01 17.39 17.18 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.057 Shah 16.01 17.22 15.80 15.66 0.001* 0.595 0.337 0.001* 0.659 Dresden 15.97 16.16 14.83 14.73 0.566 0.008* 0.002* 0.002* 0.743 Orssengo 15.67 16.03 14.36 14.24 0.407 0.009* 0.001* 0.003* 0.758 Kohlhaas 16.28 15.86 14.70 14.57 0.221 <0.001* <0.001* 0.005* 0.659 CH 10.32 7.48 7.74 7.84 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.087 0.395 CRF 10.74 6.93 6.70 6.58 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.138 0.368 CCT 545.37 446.50 456.08 459.55 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.041* Kf 42.90 37.85 38.10 38.43 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.016* Ks 44.12 38.54 38.77 39.15 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.011* Km 43.44 38.20 38.42 38.78 <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* <0.001* 0.013* 1M, 1 month; 3M, 3 months; 6M, 6 months. * Significant difference at P < 0.05.

Intraocular Pressure Changes After SMILE and FS-LASIK IOVS j August 2016 j Vol. 57 j No. 10 j 4183 TABLE 3. The DIOP per Removed or Ablated Tissue at 6 Months Between SMILE and FS-LASIK Group DIOPg DIOPcc DNCT DEhlers DShah DDresden DOrssengo DKohlhaas SMILE 0.06 6 0.03 0.03 6 0.03 0.05 6 0.02 0.01 6 0.02 0.01 6 0.02 0.02 6 0.02 0.02 6 0.02 0.02 6 0.02 FS-LASIK 0.08 6 0.03 0.04 6 0.02 0.05 6 0.03 0.02 6 0.03 0.00 6 0.03 0.01 6 0.03 0.02 6 0.03 0.02 6 0.03 t value 3.605 2.533 1.086 1.563 1.064 0.659 0.683 0.575 P value 0.001* 0.013* 0.281 0.122 0.291 0.512 0.497 0.567 * P < 0.05. with preoperative values (P < 0.01). CH and CRF showed no significant differences between 1, 3, and 6 months (P > 0.05). In FS-LASIK, the IOPg, IOPcc, and IOP NCT decreased significantly at 1 month (P < 0.01), whereas in the Ehlers and Shah formulas they significantly increased (P < 0.01). All of the IOPs decreased sharply at the 3- and 6-month follow-ups except in the Ehlers and Shah formulas (P < 0.01) when compared with preoperative values. Only IOPg and IOPcc differed between 3 and 6 months (P < 0.05). CH, CRF, CCT, Kf, Ks, and Km decreased significantly at 1, 3, and 6 months when compared with preoperative values (P < 0.01). CH and CRF showed no significant differences between 1 and 3 months (P > 0.05; Table 2). Between-Group Comparisons Table 3 shows IOP variation per removed or ablated tissue (DIOP/LT or AD) between two groups, only DIOPg/AD and DIOPcc/AD in FS-LASIK were higher than DIOPg/LT and DIOPcc/LT in SMILE at the 6-month follow-up (P < 0.05). The Figure shows the DIOP at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively, and only DIOPg in FS-LASIK was higher than SMILE at the 6-month follow-up (P < 0.05). Similarly, DCRF, DCH, DKf, DKs, and DKm per removed or ablated tissue in FS- LASIK were higher than in SMILE (0.05 6 0.02 vs. 0.04 6 0.01, 0.03 6 0.02 vs. 0.02 6 0.01, 0.05 6 0.02 vs. 0.04 6 0.01, 0.06 6 0.02 vs. 0.04 6 0.01, 0.05 6 0.02 vs. 0.04 6 0.01; P ¼ 0.001, 0.009, 0.001, <0.001, <0.001; respectively). Correlation Analysis Table 4 shows the correlations between the DIOPg, DIOPcc, DIOP NCT, and the pre-iop, DCCT, DCRF, DCH, DKm, respectively. The DIOP in the FS-LASIK group had more influencing factors and correlated with DCH and DCRF. In SMILE, the DIOPg, DIOPcc, and DIOP NCT correlated with the pre-iop (r ¼ 0.532, 0.478, 0.512, respectively, P < 0.01). Although in FS- LASIK, the DIOPg, DIOPcc, and DIOP NCT correlated with the pre-iop (r ¼ 0.780, 0.664, 0.614, respectively, P < 0.01). Regression Analysis of DIOP NCT and Influencing Factors Table 2 shows that IOP NCT was stable at 3 months after SMILE and FS-LASIK, so patients completed 3-month follow-ups were analyzed. Considering that IOP NCT was common in clinical examinations, a multiple linear regression analysis of DIOP NCT was created to analyze the relationships between possible preoperative influencing factors (pre-iop, pre-cct, Km, Kf, Ks, CRF, CH, and spherical power and astigmatic power/spherical equivalent) and intraoperative parameters (LT or AD) as well postoperative influencing factors (post-cct, Km, Kf, Ks, CRF, CH) and variations after surgery (DCCT, DKm, DKf, DKs, DCRF, DCH). Multiple linear regression models were constructed to explore the factors influencing DIOP NCT in both groups. Preoperative IOP and postoperative CRF, CH, and Kf were enrolled into regression equations in both groups. Table 5 shows the definite regression coefficients between DIOP NCT FIGURE. The comparisons of DIOPg (A), DIOPcc (B), DEhlers (C), and DShah (D) between the SMILE and FS-LASIK groups and their changes over time (pre- and postoperative 1 month [1M], pre- and postoperative 3 months [3M], and pre- and postoperative 6 months [6M]). The standard error (SE) is shown by the error bar (*P < 0.05).

Intraocular Pressure Changes After SMILE and FS-LASIK IOVS j August 2016 j Vol. 57 j No. 10 j 4184 TABLE 4. The Correlation Analysis Between DIOPg, DIOPcc, DIOP NCT, and the Pre-IOP, DCCT, DCRF, DCH, DKm, Respectively r Value and the influencing factors. It is possible to obtain the following two regression equations to evaluate DIOP NCT : after SMILE, DIOP NCT ¼ 5:412 þ 0:768IOP pre 1:892CRF post þ 1:345CH post after FS-LASIK, ðr 2 ¼ 0:520; R 2 adjusted ¼ 0:505Þ; DIOP NCT ¼ 8:612 þ 0:681IOP pre 1:362CRF post þ 0:881CH post 0:327Kf post ðr 2 ¼ 0:571; R 2 adjusted ¼ 0:552Þ: The actual postoperative IOP may be evaluated by the measured IOP plus the DIOP. DISCUSSION DIOPg DIOPcc DIOP NCT SMILE FS-LASIK SMILE FS-LASIK SMILE FS-LASIK Pre-IOP 0.532* 0.780* 0.478* 0.664* 0.512* 0.614* DCCT 0.080 0.477* 0.003 0.328* 0.175 0.468* DKf 0.008 0.180 0.165 0.214 0.140 0.376* DKs 0.016 0.263 0.098 0.267 0.036 0.356* DKm 0.045 0.194 0.132 0.209 0.097 0.344* DCRF 0.647* 0.879* 0.226 0.509* 0.255 0.507* DCH 0.008 0.609* 0.465* 0.115 0.173 0.373* * P < 0.05. IOP measurement values decreased after both SMILE and FS- LASIK, which was consistent with previous research results. 8 14,19 In this study, corneal biomechanical method ORA combined with NCT were used to investigate the relationship between corneal biomechanics and IOP change. Both tonometers estimated IOP by directing a pulse of air at the cornea, causing it to flatten and allowing an electro-optical collimation detector to evaluate corneal curvature. Both SMILE and FS- LASIK surgeries used a myopic ablation profile to remove tissue from the cornea to correct refractive error. After the surgery, CCT, corneal curvature, and corneal biomechanics decreased significantly, 26 and the corneal structure also changed. These corneal changes altered postsurgical measurement of IOP. 24 The corneal biomechanic parameters from ORA could present CH and CRF, with CH representing the viscoelastic property of the cornea and CRF the corneal elasticity with a strong positive correlation for CCT. The decrease of CH and CRF then indicates the decrease of cornea stiffness. When the IOP was measured, the cornea was more likely to be flattened, so these values were lower and underestimated the real IOP. Some studies suggested that there were no clinical symptoms of low IOP after surgery, based on animal experiments but also on clinical observation. 27 This IOP reduction was an illusion and what really changed were the influencing factors of IOP measurement. In this study, IOP measurement values remained stable at 3 months after SMILE, with CH and CRF also restored at 1 month. Moreover, CCT remained stable at 3 months and corneal curvature kept changing. Although some studies showed that the corneal curvature and CCT were related to IOP reduction, 15,28 Liu and Roberts 29 reported that differences in corneal biomechanics between individuals may contribute more than corneal thickness or curvature to IOP measurement errors, which was consistent with this study. After surgery, patients needed routine application of 0.1% FML to prevent inflammation and refractive regression for 2 months. In a comparative study, 6 weeks of FML treatment resulted in an IOP increase greater than 5 in 8.3% of cases, although topical FML was thought to have less effect on IOP than other steroid agents. 30 All of these possible influencing factors, especially corneal biomechanics, regained stability, and after stopping FML medication, IOP measurement values were stable again. Regarding IOP changes in FS-LASIK, most IOP measurement values remained stable at 3 months except IOPg and IOPcc. Similarly, CCT, Kf, Ks, and Km also did not regain its stability at 3 months except in corneal biomechanics. When compared with SMILE, FS-LASIK induced more keratocyte apoptosis, proliferation, and inflammation, 31 so IOP values after FS-LASIK seemed less stable, which may be a result of corneal structure variation. In both groups, the low IOP readings after surgery resulted in a delayed diagnosis of glaucoma or recognition of ocular hypertensive patients, so it was very important to measure postoperative IOP or the change of IOP in an accurate way. Interestingly, the decrease in postoperative 6-month IOP in the current study was significant when measured using NCT (approximately 5 ) and IOPg (approximately 6 ) when compared with IOPcc (approximately 3 ) and Pentacam (approximately 2 ). This finding is supported by the hypothesis that IOPcc is less influenced by corneal properties, such as CCT, and does not decrease significantly following LASIK and epipolis laser in situ keratomileusis. 13 Furthermore, among all of the DIOP after SMILE, DShah was smallest (0.83 ), followed by DEhlers ( 0.87 ). After FS-LASIK, DShah was the smallest (0.35 ) and DEhlers second ( 1.43 ). The comparison between DEhlers and DShah showed no significant difference. Accord- TABLE 5. The Regression Coefficients of Influencing Factors Enrolled Into the Equation Variable Group Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Value P Value 95% CI Constant SMILE 5.412 3.583 0.001 8.412, 2.413 FS-LASIK 8.612 2.261 0.026 1.045, 16.178 pre-iop NCT SMILE 0.768 0.850 9.788 0.000 0.613, 0.924 FS-LASIK 0.681 0.734 9.633 0.000 0.540, 0.821 post-crf SMILE 1.892 1.118 6.776 0.000 2.446, 1.337 FS-LASIK 1.362 0.736 4.913 0.000 1.913, 0.812 post-ch SMILE 1.345 0.697 4.646 0.000 0.770, 1.921 FS-LASIK 0.881 0.415 2.770 0.007 0.249, 1.513 post-kf FS-LASIK 0.327 0.245 3.109 0.003 0.536, 0.118 CI, confidence interval.

Intraocular Pressure Changes After SMILE and FS-LASIK IOVS j August 2016 j Vol. 57 j No. 10 j 4185 ingly, the Ehlers and Shah formulas were more close to preoperative IOP for both surgeries, with IOP variation approximately 1. Previous studies have found that IOPcc and Pentacam-Ehlers were consistent before and after LASIK 13 because only Pentacam Ehlers was available in that version of the machine. The corrected IOP can eliminate the influence of CCT. In this study, the Ehlers significantly increased at 6 months postoperatively, which may be related to the corrected coefficients and formula. It needs further investigation. A comparison of DIOP per removed or ablated tissue showed that DIOPg and DIOPcc per removed tissue in SMILE was lower than with FS-LASIK. DIOPg had a moderate correlation with DCRF (Table 3). Reasons for this change may be the better preservation of corneal integrity and corneal biomechanics after SMILE. 26 A strong positive linear correlation was found between DIOP and preoperative IOP, which was consistent with Schallhorn et al., 32 being the strongest predictor of postoperative IOP. In the FS-LASIK group, DIOP had more influencing factors and correlated with CH and CRF. Regarding DCCT, the correlation coefficient was smaller than the corneal biomechanic parameter CRF. Similarly, Liu et al. 29 reported that corneal biomechanics may contribute more than corneal thickness or curvature to IOP change, with controversy regarding how much DIOP can be explained by the DCCT. 33 From the available data, it was possible to construct models for IOP change after SMILE and FS-LASIK. These models cannot evaluate all of the variance after refractive surgery. The best-fit model for SMILE and FS-LASIK can explain 50.5% and 55.2% variance, respectively. In both models, preoperative IOP was still the main predictor of DIOP. Furthermore, postoperative CH, CRF, and Kf also enrolled in the equation, which was a new finding and a reminder of the important role of corneal biomechanics in IOP changes. In addition, NCT was a simple and safe device for routine IOP measurements. Previous data have showed that NCT can produce accurate IOP that is comparable to a Goldmann tonometer, 34,35 which was the gold standard, allowing these models to be useful in evaluating future IOP changes. The calculation of DIOP needs preoperative IOP and postoperative corneal biomechanics, which may need more comprehensive examinations. Previous studies have constructed statistical models to predict postoperative IOP after LASIK. Cheng et al. 4 used NCT to measure IOP after LASIK in 123 eyes and gave a model involving postoperative CCT, postoperative corneal curvature, and AD. That study did not consider the corneal biomechanics, which were the main influencing factors. Schallhorn et al. 32 also used NCT to measure IOP after LASIK in a large sample investigation, and the best-fit model, including manifest refraction spherical equivalent and preoperative IOP, can explain 45% variance. In that study, although the large sample was important, it only considered CCT, corneal curvature, and manifest refraction spherical equivalent while ignoring corneal biomechanics. The models in this study may be valuable when evaluating IOP after SMILE if the influence of corneal biomechanics is considered. Although new influencing factors have been added to the model to evaluate the real IOP, this study needs more samples for further study. Other IOP measurement devices need be investigated in future, such as the Goldmann tonometer, which was a gold standard for IOP measurements of a normal cornea. Some studies have showed that the Goldmann tonometer was no more accurate and could lower the IOP after PRK (photorefractive keratectomy), 15 LASEK, 10 and LASEK (laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy), 36 because it can be affected by the corneal thickness. However, the Goldmann tonometer measurement still needs to be investigated in the further research. In summary, IOP measurement underestimation after SMILE and FS-LASIK was related to corneal biomechanics as well as to preoperative IOP and Kf. IOP after SMILE seemed to remain more stable than FS-LASIK. Accordingly, the Ehlers and Shah formulas were closer to the preoperative values, with IOP variation approximately 1 at 6 months postoperatively. The best-fit models for IOP change may be useful to evaluate the long-term postoperative IOP after SMILE and FS-LASIK. Further investigations on accurate IOP measurements are required. Acknowledgments Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant 81470658) and Tianjin Research Program of Application Foundation and Advanced Technology (14JCZDJC35900). The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper. Disclosure: H. Li, None; Y. Wang, None; R. Dou, None; P. Wei, None; J. Zhang, None; W. Zhao, None; L. Li, None References 1. Lee JK, Chuck RS, Park CY. Femtosecond laser refractive surgery: small-incision lenticule extraction vs. femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2015;26:260 264. 2. Vestergaard A, Ivarsen AR, Asp S, et al. Small-incision lenticule extraction for moderate to high myopia: predictability, safety, and patient satisfaction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38: 2003 2010. 3. Reinstein DZ, Carp GI, Archer TJ, et al. Outcomes of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) in low myopia. J Refract Surg. 2014;30:812 818. 4. Cheng AC, Fan D, Tang E, et al. Effect of corneal curvature and corneal thickness on the assessment of intraocular pressure using noncontact tonometry in patients after myopic LASIK surgery. Cornea. 2006;25:26 28. 5. Marcus MW, de Vries MM, Junoy Montolio FG, et al. Myopia as a risk factor for open-angle glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:1989 1994. 6. Tomi T, Nicula C, Nicula D. Postoperative complications of refractive surgery, Lasik technique. Oftalmologia. 2003;58:60 63. 7. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:429 440. 8. Chatterjee A, Shah S, Bessant DA, et al. Reduction in intraocular pressure after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy correlation with pretreatment myopia. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:355 359. 9. Sadigh AL, Fouladi RF, Hashemi H, et al. A comparison between Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry after photorefractive keratectomy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251:603 608. 10. Johannesson G, Hallberg P, Eklund A, et al. Change in intraocular pressure measurement 2 years after myopic laserassisted subepithelial keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38:1637 1642. 11. Han KE, Kim H, Kim NR, et al. Comparison of intraocular pressures after myopic laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy: Tonometry-pachymetry, Goldmann applanation tonometry, dynamic contour tonometry, and noncontact tonometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39:888 897. 12. Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA. Intraocular pressure measurements using dynamic contour tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:3790 3794.

Intraocular Pressure Changes After SMILE and FS-LASIK IOVS j August 2016 j Vol. 57 j No. 10 j 4186 13. Shousha SM, Abo Steit MA, Hosny MH, et al. Comparison of different intraocular pressure measurement techniques in normal eyes, post surface and post lamellar refractive surgery. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:71 79. 14. Shemesh G, Soiberman U, Kurtz S. Intraocular pressure measurements with Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in eyes after IntraLASIK or LASEK. Clin Ophthalmol. 2012;6:1967 1970. 15. Garzozi HJ, Chung HS, Lang Y, et al. Intraocular pressure and photorefractive keratectomy: a comparison of three different tonometers. Cornea. 2001;20:33 36. 16. Roberts CJ. Concepts and misconceptions in corneal biomechanics. J Refract Surg. 2014;40:862 869. 17. Lam A, Chen D, Chiu R, et al. Comparison of IOP measurements between ORA and GAT in normal Chinese. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84:909 914. 18. Pepose JS, Feigenbaum SK, Qazi MA, et al. Changes in corneal biomechancis and intraocular pressure following LASIK using static, dynamic and noncontact tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:39 47. 19. Dou R, Wang Y, Xu L, et al. Comparison of corneal biomechanical characteristics after surface ablation refractive surgery and novel lamellar refractive surgery. Cornea. 2015; 34:1441 1446. 20. Yilmaz I, Altan C, Aygit ED, et al. Comparison of three methods of tonometry in normal subjects: Goldmann applanation tonometer, non-contact airpuff tonometer, and Tono-Pen XL. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:1069 1074. 21. Ehlers N, Bramsen T, Sperling S. Applanation tomometry and central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol. 1975;53:34 43. 22. Shah S, Chatterjee A, Mathai M, et al. Relationship between corneal thickness and measured intraocular pressure in a general ophthalmology clinic. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:2154 2160. 23. Kohlhaas M, Boehm AG, Spoerl E, et al. Effect of central corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and axial length on applanation tomometry. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124:471 476. 24. Kohlhaas M, Spoerl E, Boehm AG, et al. A correction formula for the real intraocular pressure after LASIK for the correction of myopic astigmatism. J Refract Surg. 2006;22:263 267. 25. Orssengo GJ, Pye DC. Determination of the true intraocular pressure and modulus of elasticity of the human cornea in vivo. Bull Math Biol. 1999;61:551 572. 26. Wu D, Wang Y, Zhang L, et al. Corneal biomechanical effects: small-incision lenticule extraction versus femtosecond laserassisted laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40:954 962. 27. Siganos DS, Papastergion GI, Moedas C. Assessment of the pascal dynamic contour tonometer in monitoring intraocular pressure in unoperated eyes and eyes after LASIK. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30:746 751. 28. Cacho I, Sanchez-Naves J, Batres L, et al. Comparison of Intraocular pressure before and after laser in situ keratomileusis refractive surgery measured with Perkins tonometry noncontact tonometry, and transpalpebral tonometry. J Ophthalmol. 2015;2015:683895. 29. Liu J, Roberts CJ. Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: quantitative analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:146 155. 30. Armaly MF. Statistical attributes of the steroid hypertensive response in the clinically normal eye: the demonstration at three levels of response. Invest Ophthalmol. l965;4:187 197. 31. Dong Z, Zhou X, Wu J, et al. Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser LASIK: comparison of corneal wound healing and inflammation. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98: 263 269. 32. Schallhorn JM, Schallhorn SC, Ou Y. Factors that influence intraocular pressure changes after myopic and hyperopic LASIK and photorefractive keratectomy: a large population study. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:471 479. 33. Kotecha A. What biomechanical properties of the cornea are relevant for the clinician? Surv Ophthalmol. 2007;52(suppl 2): S109 S114. 34. Jorge J, Diaz-Rey JA, Gonzalez-Meijome JM, et al. Clinical performance of the Reichert AT 550: a new non-contact tonometer. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2002;22:560 564. 35. Cho P, Lui T. Comparison of the performance of the Nidek NT- 2000 noncontact tonometer with the Keeler Pulsair 2000 and the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Optom Vis Sci. 1997; 74:51 58. 36. Kirwan C, O Keefe M. Measurement of intraocular pressure in LASIK and LASEK patients using the Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Refract Surg. 2008;24:366 370.