Comparison of Treatment Zone Decentration Between VISUMAX 500 and VISUMAX 800 Keratorefractive Lenticule Extraction Using Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography
- 1Hangil Eye Hospital, Incheon 21388, Republic of Korea
- 2Bright St. Mary Eye Clinic (BSM Eye Clinic), Seoul 06232, Republic of Korea
- 3Department of Ophthalmology, Catholic Kwandong University College of Medicine, Incheon 22711, Republic of Korea
Abstract
Background/Objectives: To compare treatment-zone decentration after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) performed with VISUMAX 500 and VISUMAX 800 using corneal thickness difference maps derived from anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Methods: This retrospective comparative study included 44 eyes of 22 participants who underwent SMILE with VISUMAX 500 or VISUMAX 800 by a single surgeon and had preoperative and 3-month postoperative CASIA2 examinations. Treatment-zone centers were primarily identified manually relative to the corneal vertex. Between-platform differences were analyzed using generalized estimating equations (GEE) accounting for inter-eye correlation, with additional adjustment for preoperative cylinder. Participant-level analyses and semi-automated radial color-symmetry localization were performed as sensitivity analyses. Results: Twenty-two eyes of 11 participants were included in each group. Mean radial decentration was 0.219 ± 0.134 mm with VISUMAX 500 and 0.225 ± 0.171 mm with VISUMAX 800. The mean between-group difference was 0.006 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.074 to 0.085; p = 0.890), and remained similar after adjustment for preoperative cylinder (0.006 mm; 95% CI, −0.082 to 0.094; p = 0.888). Participant-level analysis likewise showed no evidence of a between-group difference (mean difference, 0.0056 mm; 95% CI, −0.083 to 0.094; exact permutation p = 0.907). Reanalysis using semi-automated localization yielded a similarly small between-platform difference (0.0114 mm; 95% CI, −0.063 to 0.086; p = 0.763). Conclusions: In this small single-surgeon cohort, treatment-zone decentration did not differ significantly between VISUMAX 500 and VISUMAX 800. The findings were consistent across participant-level and semi-automated sensitivity analyses. Because the study was not designed as an equivalence or noninferiority trial, these results should be interpreted as an absence of evidence for a between-platform difference rather than evidence of equivalent centration performance.
Related
- Left ventricular function and volumes from cardiac magnetic resonance and gated [13N]-ammonia positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with ischemia with no obstructive coronary arteries: a prospective head-to-head comparison using hybrid positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance
- Comparison of Biometric Measurements Between Anterior Segment Hyperparallel and Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography
- Comparison of Risk Assessment Strategies Recommended by the 2019 and 2024 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines in Patients With Stable Chest Pain: A Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Study
- Quantification of plaque and detection of high-risk plaque characteristics based on coronary computed tomography angiography: comparison between superresolution deep learning reconstruction and hybrid iterative reconstruction
- Effect of Peripheral Defocus Contact Lens Residual Decentration After Six Months of Wear on the Astigmatic Component in Myopic Children
BibTeX
@article{yoo2026comparison,
title = {{Comparison of Treatment Zone Decentration Between VISUMAX 500 and VISUMAX 800 Keratorefractive Lenticule Extraction Using Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography}},
author = {Tae Keun Yoo and Si-Hoon Park and Sang-Mok Lee},
journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/jcm15207851},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/20/7851},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Comparison of Treatment Zone Decentration Between VISUMAX 500 and VISUMAX 800 Keratorefractive Lenticule Extraction Using Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography
AU - Tae Keun Yoo
AU - Si-Hoon Park
AU - Sang-Mok Lee
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO - 10.3390/jcm15207851
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/20/7851
AB - Background/Objectives: To compare treatment-zone decentration after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) performed with VISUMAX 500 and VISUMAX 800 using corneal thickness difference maps derived from anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Methods: This retrospective comparative study included 44 eyes of 22 participants who underwent SMILE with VISUMAX 500 or VISUMAX 800 by a single surgeon and had preoperative and 3-month postoperative CASIA2 examinations. Treatment-zone centers were primarily identified manually relative to the corneal vertex. Between-platform differences were analyzed using generalized estimating equations (GEE) accounting for inter-eye correlation, with additional adjustment for preoperative cylinder. Participant-level analyses and semi-automated radial color-symmetry localization were performed as sensitivity analyses. Results: Twenty-two eyes of 11 participants were included in each group. Mean radial decentration was 0.219 ± 0.134 mm with VISUMAX 500 and 0.225 ± 0.171 mm with VISUMAX 800. The mean between-group difference was 0.006 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.074 to 0.085; p = 0.890), and remained similar after adjustment for preoperative cylinder (0.006 mm; 95% CI, −0.082 to 0.094; p = 0.888). Participant-level analysis likewise showed no evidence of a between-group difference (mean difference, 0.0056 mm; 95% CI, −0.083 to 0.094; exact permutation p = 0.907). Reanalysis using semi-automated localization yielded a similarly small between-platform difference (0.0114 mm; 95% CI, −0.063 to 0.086; p = 0.763). Conclusions: In this small single-surgeon cohort, treatment-zone decentration did not differ significantly between VISUMAX 500 and VISUMAX 800. The findings were consistent across participant-level and semi-automated sensitivity analyses. Because the study was not designed as an equivalence or noninferiority trial, these results should be interpreted as an absence of evidence for a between-platform difference rather than evidence of equivalent centration performance.
SN - 2077-0383
ER -