Objective:

To compare early clinical outcomes, centration accuracy, and optical quality-related parameters after SMILE performed using the VisuMax 800 and VisuMax 500 platforms in a Chinese population with myopia and low-to-moderate astigmatism.

Approach:

Key Findings:

• No significant differences in uncorrected or corrected distance visual acuity, safety index, or efficacy index between groups (p > 0.05).
• SMILE Pro group had significantly shorter lenticule creation time (9.47 s vs. 27.43 s, p < 0.01).
• Lower absolute Y-axis decentration and total optical zone decentration in the SMILE Pro group (both p < 0.01).
• Lower postoperative vertical coma in the SMILE Pro group (p = 0.004).
• Lower postoperative residual cylindrical error in the SMILE Pro group (p = 0.048).

Interpretation:

Both VisuMax 500 and VisuMax 800 platforms showed favorable safety and efficacy for correcting myopia and low-to-moderate astigmatism, with the SMILE Pro platform demonstrating improved centration and optical quality metrics.

Limitations:

• Retrospective design may introduce selection bias.
• Single-center study limits generalizability.
• Short follow-up period of 3 months.

Conclusion:

SMILE Pro (VisuMax 800) is associated with improved outcomes compared to conventional SMILE (VisuMax 500), warranting further prospective, multicenter studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up.

Source

Based on findings from:

Comparison of early clinical and optical quality-related outcomes after SMILE using VisuMax 800 versus VisuMax 500 for myopia and low-to-moderate astigmatism in a Chinese population: a single-center retrospective study

Xuanyu Yang, Jiabin Leng, Yuchen Mei, Fei Peng, Yifan Xie, Linlin Liu, Linhua Wan, Liping Liu, Wentian Zhou, Hui Zhang. Frontiers In Medicine, 2026.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2026.1790038/full

Attribution Notice

This content is an AI-generated, fully rewritten summary based on a published scholarly article. It does not reproduce the original text and is not a substitute for the original publication. Readers are encouraged to consult the source for full context, data, and methodology.