Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180941
DC FieldValue
dc.titleRetreatment strategies following Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE): In vivo tissue responses
dc.contributor.authorRiau A.K.
dc.contributor.authorLiu Y.-C.
dc.contributor.authorLim C.H.L.
dc.contributor.authorLwin N.C.
dc.contributor.authorTeo E.P.
dc.contributor.authorYam G.H.
dc.contributor.authorTan D.T.
dc.contributor.authorMehta J.S.
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-01T07:51:05Z
dc.date.available2019-11-01T07:51:05Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.citationRiau A.K., Liu Y.-C., Lim C.H.L., Lwin N.C., Teo E.P., Yam G.H., Tan D.T., Mehta J.S. (2017). Retreatment strategies following Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE): In vivo tissue responses. PLoS ONE 12 (7) : e0180941. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180941
dc.identifier.issn19326203
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/161184
dc.description.abstractWith any refractive correction, including Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE), there may be a residual refractive error that requires a retreatment. Here, we investigated the tissue responses following various retreatment procedures in a rabbit model of SMILE. All rabbits underwent a -6.00D correction with SMILE. Two weeks later, they underwent -1.00D enhancement by: (i) VisuMax Circle, followed by excimer ablation (S+C); (ii) secondary SMILE anterior to the primary procedure (S+SE); or (iii) surface ablation (S+P), and were examined for 28 days. S+P induced corneal edema and haze, and more CD11b- (23±6 cells) and TUNEL-positive (36±4 cells) cells in the central stromal superficial layers early post-operatively (p<0.001 compared to other procedures). The corneas appeared normal on day 28 after S+P, but had a lower number of keratocytes near the laser ablated plane compared to other procedures. S+SE and S+C did not induce corneal haze and resulted similar level of fibronectin. However, S+C resulted in more inflammatory (10±2 cells; p = 0.001) and apoptotic cells (25±2 cells; p<0.001) compared to S+SE (7±1 inflammatory cells and 21±3 apoptotic cells) early post-operatively. In conclusion, each SMILE retreatment method resulted in unique tissue responses. S+SE offers advantages, such as minimal inflammation and cell death, as well as maintaining a ‘flap-less’ surgery, over other procedures. However, depending on the degree of enhancement, the lenticule may become too thin to be extracted and the procedure becomes more difficult to perform than S+C and S +P. S+P can maintain corneal integrity by avoiding flap creation and is technically more simple to perform than the others, but the surgery needs to be supplemented with mitomycin-C in order to reduce inflammation and modulate better wound healing. © 2017 Riau et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourceUnpaywall 20191101
dc.subjectCD11b antigen
dc.subjectfibronectin
dc.subjectfibronectin
dc.subjectKi 67 antigen
dc.subjectanimal cell
dc.subjectanimal experiment
dc.subjectanimal tissue
dc.subjectanterior segment optical coherence tomography
dc.subjectapoptosis
dc.subjectArticle
dc.subjectcell death
dc.subjectconfocal microscopy
dc.subjectcontrolled study
dc.subjectcornea disease
dc.subjectcornea edema
dc.subjectcorneal haze
dc.subjectimmunohistochemistry
dc.subjectin vivo study
dc.subjectinflammation
dc.subjectintermethod comparison
dc.subjectNew Zealand White (rabbit)
dc.subjectnonhuman
dc.subjectophthalmic excimer laser
dc.subjectophthalmic femtosecond laser
dc.subjectophthalmic laser
dc.subjectoptical coherence tomography
dc.subjectOryctolagus cuniculus
dc.subjectpostoperative complication
dc.subjectretreatment
dc.subjectsmall incision lenticule extraction
dc.subjectsurface ablation
dc.subjecttissue reaction
dc.subjectTUNEL assay
dc.subjectwound healing
dc.subjectanimal
dc.subjectcornea
dc.subjectcornea stroma
dc.subjectdiagnostic imaging
dc.subjectexcimer laser
dc.subjectLeporidae
dc.subjectmetabolism
dc.subjectpathology
dc.subjectphotorefractive keratectomy
dc.subjectsurgery
dc.subjectAnimals
dc.subjectAntigens, CD11b
dc.subjectApoptosis
dc.subjectCornea
dc.subjectCorneal Stroma
dc.subjectFibronectins
dc.subjectKi-67 Antigen
dc.subjectLasers, Excimer
dc.subjectMicroscopy, Confocal
dc.subjectPhotorefractive Keratectomy
dc.subjectRabbits
dc.subjectTomography, Optical Coherence
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentDUKE-NUS MEDICAL SCHOOL
dc.contributor.departmentDEAN'S OFFICE (DUKE-NUS MEDICAL SCHOOL)
dc.description.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0180941
dc.description.sourcetitlePLoS ONE
dc.description.volume12
dc.description.issue7
dc.description.pagee0180941
Appears in Collections:Elements
Staff Publications

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_1371_journal_pone_0180941.pdf18.08 MBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

7
checked on Jul 25, 2021

Page view(s)

147
checked on Jul 23, 2021

Download(s)

1
checked on Jul 23, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons