Enhanced predictability and axis precision of SMILE Pro, a retrospective analysis of myopic astigmatism correction

Evidence database / Studies / iritas-burke-2026-smile-pro-astigmatism

64enrolled patients*

128enrolled eyes*

1structured arms

90maximum standardized days follow-up

* Descriptive sum of reported arm counts. “≥” indicates that one or more arm counts were not reported; missing values are not treated as zero.

Study arm

SMILE Pro myopic astigmatism cohort

SMILEVISUMAX 800

Population

Patients: 64
Eyes: 128
Bilateral treatment: Not reported
Age range: 19 to 36 years
Sphere range: Not reported
Cylinder range: Not reported
Spherical equivalent: Not reported
Corneal thickness: Not reported

Eligibility definition

Inclusion
Myopic astigmatism; preoperative corrected distance acuity of at least 1.0 in decimal notation; three-month postoperative records.

Exclusion
Not structured

Reported outcomes by follow-up

Outcome	Follow-up	Follow-up sample	Result	Reported fraction	Provenance
Spherical equivalent within ±0.50 D of target predictability	3 months	128 eyes	36.7%	denominator: 128 eyes	VERIFIED Source · Abstract
Spherical equivalent within ±1.00 D of target predictability	3 months	128 eyes	87.5%	denominator: 128 eyes	VERIFIED Source · Abstract
Mean residual refractive cylinder refractive	3 months	128 eyes	-0.56 D	denominator: 128 eyes	VERIFIED Source · Abstract

Complications

No structured complication observations are available for this arm. This means “not reported in this dataset,” not zero complications.

Study design

Retrospective review of 64 patients (128 eyes), treated June–November 2024; preoperative and three-month measurements.

Country: Türkiye
Publication-reported places: Başkent University, Istanbul, Türkiye · Medipol University, Istanbul, Türkiye
Multicenter: No
Prospective: No
Randomized: No
Source type: RETROSPECTIVE
Regulator: Not reported

Place metadata may refer to a treatment site, institution or author affiliation. Confirm its role in the linked publication.

Limitations and notes

Single-center retrospective study with short follow-up and paired eyes. The abstract reports 36.7% within ±0.50 D; retained as published despite its favorable narrative. No missing numerators were reconstructed from rounded percentages. Author affiliations are listed, not assumed to be separate treatment centers.

Missing fields are not interpreted as negative findings. Arm counts may not be additive in all study designs.

Study evidence level
A simple, non-GRADE hierarchy based on design: randomized and large regulatory trials are high; prospective cohorts moderate; retrospective observational studies low. Manual review can override this label.