-
Frontiers in Public Health 2023The rising prevalence of myopia is a major global public health concern. Economic evaluation of myopia interventions is critical for maximizing the benefits of treatment... (Review)
Review
The rising prevalence of myopia is a major global public health concern. Economic evaluation of myopia interventions is critical for maximizing the benefits of treatment and the healthcare system. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions for treating myopia. Five databases were searched - Embase, Emcare, PubMed, Web of Science, and ProQuest - from inception to July 2022 and a total of 2,099 articles were identified. After careful assessments, 6 studies met the eligibility criteria. The primary outcomes of this systematic review were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The secondary outcomes included utility values and net monetary benefits (NMB). One study determined the cost-effectiveness of photorefractive screening plus treatment with 0.01% atropine, 2 studies examined cost-effectiveness of corneal refractive surgery, and 3 studies evaluated cost-effectiveness of commonly used therapies for pathologic myopia. Corneal refractive surgeries included laser keratomileusis (LASIK), femtosecond laser-assisted keratomileusis (FS-LASIK), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Interventions for pathologic myopia included ranibizumab, conbercept, and photodynamic therapy (PDT). At an incremental cost of NZ$ 18 (95% CI 15, 20) (US$ 11) per person, photorefractive screening plus 0.01% atropine resulted in an ICER of NZ$ 1,590/QALY (US$ 1,001/QALY) (95% CI NZ$ 1,390, 1,791) for an incremental QALY of 0.0129 (95% CI 0.0127, 0.0131). The cost of refractive surgery in Europe ranged from €3,075 to €3,123 ([US$4,046 to $4,109 - adjusted to 2021 inflation). QALYs associated with these procedures were 23 (FS-LASIK) and 24 (SMILE and PRK) with utility values of 0.8 and ICERs ranging from approximately €14 (US$17)/QALY to €19 (US$23)/QALY. The ICER of LASIK was US$683/diopter gained (inflation-adjusted). The ICER of ranibizumab and PDT were £8,778 (US$12,032)/QALY and US$322,460/QALY respectively, with conbercept yielding a saving of 541,974 RMB (US$80,163)/QALY, respectively. The use of 0.01% atropine and corneal refractive surgery were cost-effective for treating myopia. Treating pathologic myopia with ranibizumab and conbercept were more cost-effective than PDT. Prevention of myopia progression is more cost-effective than treating pathologic myopia.
Topics: Humans; Visual Acuity; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; Ranibizumab; Myopia; Atropine Derivatives
PubMed: 36923029
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1093836 -
Ophthalmology and Therapy Dec 2021The incidence of ectasia following refractive surgery is unclear. This review sought to determine the worldwide rates of ectasia after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK),... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The incidence of ectasia following refractive surgery is unclear. This review sought to determine the worldwide rates of ectasia after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) based on reports in the literature.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted according to modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Publications were identified by a search of eight electronic databases for relevant terms between 1984 and 2021. Patient characteristics and preoperative values including manifest refractive spherical refractive equivalent (MRSE), central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior keratometry, postoperative residual stromal bed (RSB), and percent tissue altered (PTA) were summarized. In addition, annual rates of each refractive surgery were determined, and incidence of post-refractive ectasia for each type was calculated using the number of ectatic eyes identified in the literature.
RESULTS
In total, 57 eyes (70 eyes including those with preoperative risk factors for ectasia) were identified to have post-PRK ectasia, while 1453 eyes (1681 eyes including risk factors) had post-LASIK ectasia, and 11 eyes (19 eyes including risk factors) had post-SMILE ectasia. Cases of refractive surgery performed annually were estimated as 283,920 for PRK, 1,608,880 for LASIK, and 96,750 for SMILE. Reported post-refractive ectasia in eyes without preoperative identifiable risk factors occurred with the following incidences: 20 per 100,000 eyes in PRK, 90 per 100,000 eyes in LASIK, and 11 per 100,000 eyes in SMILE. The rate of ectasia in LASIK was found to be 4.5 times higher than that of PRK.
CONCLUSION
Post-refractive ectasia occurs at lower rates in eyes undergoing PRK than LASIK. Although SMILE appears to have the lowest rate of ectasia, the number of cases already reported since its recent approval suggests that post-SMILE ectasia may become a concern. Considering that keratoconus is a spectrum of disease, pre-existing keratoconus may play a larger role in postoperative ectasia than previously accounted for in the literature.
PubMed: 34417707
DOI: 10.1007/s40123-021-00383-w -
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Dec 2020Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) eye surgery is widely used for patients at risk for corneal ectasia to maintain an aspheric corneal shape. Wavefront-guided (WFG)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) eye surgery is widely used for patients at risk for corneal ectasia to maintain an aspheric corneal shape. Wavefront-guided (WFG) ablation profile was designed to reduce pre-existing higher-order aberrations (HOA). We aimed to compare the corneal aberrations and visual outcomes between WFG and Wavefront Optimized (WFO) PRK in patients with myopia. Eight randomized clinical trials were included. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CENTRAL at March 2020, and updated the search in September 2020 using relevant keywords, The data were extracted and pooled as Mean Difference (MD) with a 95% Confidence Interval (CI), using Review Manager software (version 5.4). Pooled results showed no significance between Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity (UDVA) and Corrected Distance Visual Acuity (CDVA) between both groups underwent WFG and WFO PPR after three months follow up (MD = -0.03; 95% CI: [-0.06, 0.00]; P = 0.07), (MD = -0.02; 95% CI: [-0.04, 0.01]; P = 0.22) respectively. Although, no significant difference between mean manifest cylinder after three and 12 months follow up, but the total MD for mean manifest cylinder difference was significantly lower with the WFG treatment method (MD = -0.12, (95% CI: [0.23:-0.01], P = 0.03). This shows a slight advantage of the WFG over the WFO method. The visual performance showed similarity and excellent refractive outcomes in both WFO and WFG PRK. No significant statistical differences between the two approaches. On further comparison, there was a slight advantage of the WFG over the WFO method.
Topics: Corneal Wavefront Aberration; Humans; Lasers, Excimer; Photorefractive Keratectomy; Prospective Studies; Refraction, Ocular; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33229644
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_2921_20 -
American Journal of Ophthalmology Jun 2017To compare the postoperative efficacy, predictability, safety, and visual quality of all major forms of laser corneal refractive surgeries for correcting myopia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To compare the postoperative efficacy, predictability, safety, and visual quality of all major forms of laser corneal refractive surgeries for correcting myopia.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
METHODS
Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the US trial registry was conducted up to November 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting in accordance with the eligibility criteria were included in this review. We performed a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Forty-eight RCTs were identified. For efficacy (uncorrected visual acuity [UCVA]), there were no statistically significant differences between any pair of treatments analyzed. The SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking curve) ranking (from best to worst) was femtosecond-based laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK), LASIK, small-incision lenticule extraction, femtosecond lenticule extraction (FLEx), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK), epipolis (Epi)-LASIK, transepithelial PRK (T-PRK). For predictability (refractive spherical equivalent [SE]), a statistically significant difference was found when FS-LASIK was compared with LASIK (odds ratio [OR] 2.29, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.20-4.14), PRK (OR 2.16, 95% CrI 1.15-4.03), LASEK (OR 2.09, 95% CrI 1.08-4.55), and Epi-LASIK (OR 2.74, 95% CrI 1.11-6.20). The SUCRA ranking (from best to worst) was FS-LASIK, T-PRK, LASEK, PRK, LASIK, Epi-LASIK. There were no statistically significant differences in the safety (best spectacle-corrected visual acuity) comparisons. For both postoperative higher-order aberrations (HOAs) and contrast sensitivity (CS), there were no statistically significant differences between any pair of treatments analyzed. The SUCRA ranking results show that some corneal surface ablation techniques (PRK and LASEK) rank highest.
CONCLUSIONS
This network meta-analysis shows that there were no statistically significant differences in either visual outcomes (efficacy and safety) or visual quality (HOAs and CS). FS-LASIK behaved better in predictability than any other type of surgeries.
Topics: Cornea; Humans; Lasers, Excimer; Myopia; Network Meta-Analysis; Photorefractive Keratectomy; Postoperative Period; Refraction, Ocular; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 28336402
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.03.013 -
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Dec 2021Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) is considered a safe approach laser procedure with a clinical significance in correcting myopia results. PRK requires removing the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) is considered a safe approach laser procedure with a clinical significance in correcting myopia results. PRK requires removing the whole superficial epithelium. The integrity of the epithelial basement membrane and the deposition of abnormal extracellular matrix can put the cornea in a probable situation for corneal haze formation. Mitomycin C (MMC) is applied after excimer laser ablation as a primary modulator for wound healing, limiting corneal haze formation. We aim to summarize the outcomes of MMC application after laser ablation. We searched Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science till December 2020 using relevant keywords. The data were extracted and pooled as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), using Review Manager software (version 5.4). Our analysis demonstrated a statistically significant result for MMC application over the control group in terms of corneal haze formation postoperatively (RR = 0.29, 95% CI: [0.19, 0.45], P < 0.00001). Regarding corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), no significant difference was observed between the MMC group and the control group (MD = 0.02; 95% CI: [-0.04, 0.07]; P = 0.56). Regarding the uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), the analysis favored the MMC application with (MD -0.03, 95% CI: [-0.06, -0.00]; P = 0.05). There was no statistically significant increase in complications with MMC. In conclusion, MMC application after PRK is associated with a lower incidence of corneal haze formation with no statistically significant side effects. The long term effect can show improvement regarding UDVA favoring MMC. However, there is no significant effect of MMCs application regarding CDVA, and SE.
Topics: Alkylating Agents; Humans; Lasers, Excimer; Mitomycin; Myopia; Photorefractive Keratectomy
PubMed: 34826969
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_3768_20 -
Ophthalmology Nov 2006To examine possible differences in efficacy and safety between LASIK and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of myopia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To examine possible differences in efficacy and safety between LASIK and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of myopia.
DESIGN
Meta-analysis/systematic review.
PARTICIPANTS
Patient data from previously reported prospective randomized controlled trials (PRCTs) and a systematic review of prospective case series in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clinical trials database.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration methodology to identify PRCTs comparing LASIK and PRK for correction of myopia. A meta-analysis was performed on the results of PRCTs. In parallel, a systematic review of prospective data from FDA case series of LASIK and PRK for correction of myopia was undertaken.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Key efficacy outcomes (uncorrected visual acuity [UCVA] > or = 20/20, +/-0.50 diopters [D] of the target mean refractive spherical equivalent) and safety outcomes (loss of > or =2 lines of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity [BSCVA], final BSCVA > or = 20/40, and final BSCVA < 20/25 where preoperative BSCVA was > or =20/20).
RESULTS
Seven PRCTs were identified comparing PRK (683 eyes) and LASIK (403 eyes) for correction of myopia. More LASIK patients achieved UCVA > or = 20/20 at 6 months (odds ratio, random effects model [95% confidence interval], 1.72 [1.14-2.58]; P = 0.009) and 12 months (1.78 [1.15-2.75], P = 0.01). Loss of > or =2 lines of BSCVA at 6 months was less frequent with LASIK (2.69 [1.01-7.18], P = 0.05). Data from 14 LASIK (7810 eyes) and 10 PRK (4414 eyes) FDA laser approval case series showed that more LASIK patients achieved UCVA of 20/20 or better at 12 months (1.15 [1.03-1.29], P = 0.01), significantly more LASIK patients were within +/-0.50 D of target refraction at 6 months (1.38 [1.26-1.50], P<0.00001) and 12 months (1.21 [1.08-1.36], P = 0.0009) after treatment, and loss of > or =2 lines of BSCVA at 6 months was less frequent with LASIK (2.91 [2.22-3.83], P<0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS
LASIK appears to have efficacy and safety superior to those of PRK. However, the data examined are from studies conducted > or =5 years ago. It is therefore unclear how our findings relate to present-day methods and outcomes. Further trials comparing contemporary equipment and techniques are needed to reevaluate the relative merits of these procedures.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Eyeglasses; Humans; Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ; Lasers, Excimer; Myopia; Photorefractive Keratectomy; Safety; Treatment Outcome; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 17074559
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.08.013 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Myopia (near-sightedness or short-sightedness) is a condition in which the refractive power of the eye is greater than required. The most frequent complaint of people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Myopia (near-sightedness or short-sightedness) is a condition in which the refractive power of the eye is greater than required. The most frequent complaint of people with myopia is blurred distance vision, which can be eliminated by conventional optical aids such as spectacles or contact lenses, or by refractive surgery procedures such as photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK). PRK uses laser to remove the corneal stroma. Similar to PRK, LASEK first creates an epithelial flap and then replaces it after ablating the corneal stroma. The relative benefits and harms of LASEK and PRK, as shown in different trials, warrant a systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review is to compare LASEK versus PRK for correction of myopia by evaluating their efficacy and safety in terms of postoperative uncorrected visual acuity, residual refractive error, and associated complications.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision group Trials Register) (2015 Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to December 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 December 2015. We used the Science Citation Index and searched the reference lists of the included trials to identify relevant trials for this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included in this review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LASEK versus PRK for correction of myopia. Trial participants were 18 years of age or older and had no co-existing ocular or systemic diseases that might affect refractive status or wound healing.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened all reports and assessed the risk of bias of trials included in this review. We extracted data and summarized findings using risk ratios and mean differences. We used a random-effects model when we identified at least three trials, and we used a fixed-effect model when we found fewer than three trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 RCTs with a total of 428 participants 18 years of age or older with low to moderate myopia. These trials were conducted in the Czech Republic, Brazil, Italy, Iran, China, Korea, Mexico, Turkey, USA, and UK. Investigators of 10 out of 11 trials randomly assigned one eye of each participant to be treated with LASEK and the other with PRK, but did not perform paired-eye (matched) analysis. Because of differences in outcome measures and follow-up times among the included trials, few trials contributed data for many of the outcomes we analyzed for this review. Overall, we judged RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias due to poor reporting; however, because of imprecision, inconsistency, and potential reporting bias, we graded the quality of the evidence from very low to moderate for outcomes assessed in this review.The proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity of 20/20 or better at 12-month follow-up was comparable in LASEK and PRK groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.92 to 1.05). Although the 95% CI suggests little to no difference in effect between groups, we judged the quality of the evidence to be low because only one trial reported this outcome (102 eyes). At 12 months post treatment, data from two trials suggest no difference or a possibly small effect in favor of PRK over LASEK for the proportion of eyes achieving ± 0.50 D of target refraction (RR 0.93, 95% CI 00.84 to 1.03; 152 eyes; low-quality evidence). At 12 months post treatment, one trial reported that one of 51 eyes in the LASEK group lost one line or more best-spectacle corrected visual acuity compared with none of 51 eyes in the PRK group (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 71.96; very low-quality evidence).Three trials reported adverse outcomes at 12 months of follow-up or longer. At 12 months post treatment, three trials reported corneal haze score; however, data were insufficient and were inconsistent among the trials, precluding meta-analysis. One trial reported little or no difference in corneal haze scores between groups; another trial reported that corneal haze scores were lower in the LASEK group than in the PRK group; and one trial did not report analyzable data to estimate a treatment effect. At 24 months post treatment, one trial reported a lower, but clinically unimportant, difference in corneal haze score for LASEK compared with PRK (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.14; 184 eyes; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Uncertainty surrounds differences in efficacy, accuracy, safety, and adverse effects between LASEK and PRK for eyes with low to moderate myopia. Future trials comparing LASEK versus PRK should follow reporting standards and follow correct analysis. Trial investigators should expand enrollment criteria to include participants with high myopia and should evaluate visual acuity, refraction, epithelial healing time, pain scores, and adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Keratectomy, Subepithelial, Laser-Assisted; Myopia; Photorefractive Keratectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 26899152
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009799.pub2 -
Acta Ophthalmologica Sep 2021To evaluate the anti-haze effect and visual outcome after intraoperative mitomycin C (MMC) use during photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in myopia or myopic astigmatism... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To evaluate the anti-haze effect and visual outcome after intraoperative mitomycin C (MMC) use during photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in myopia or myopic astigmatism patients.
METHODS
We searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar comprehensively to obtain studies comparing the clinical effects after PRK with and without MMC published until February 2020. Meta-analysis of primary outcome (corneal haze rate) and secondary outcomes [predictability, efficacy, safety and corneal endothelial cell density (ECD)] were conducted. We used trial sequential analysis (TSA) in an effort to collect firm evidence supporting our conclusion.
RESULTS
Of the included 11 randomized controlled trials, five cohort and one case-control studies, 3536 eyes (2232 and 1304 in the MMC and control groups, respectively) were enrolled for meta-analysis. The TSA disclosed strong evidence of decline in corneal haze rate in the MMC group compared with that of the control group. In the subgroup analysis of duration, MMC seemed to reduce corneal haze rate in early-onset and late-onset haze. Predictability of refraction and visual acuity were greater in the MMC groups, not significantly though. The proportion of patients losing at least two lines of best corrected visual acuity postoperatively in the MMC groups was lower than that in the control groups. The corneal postoperative ECD showed no significant difference between the MMC and control groups.
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis revealed that MMC is an important anti-haze agent in PRK for reducing both early- and late-onset haze and can also help improving predictability of refraction and subjective postoperative visual acuity.
Topics: Corneal Opacity; Cross-Linking Reagents; Humans; Mitomycin; Myopia; Photorefractive Keratectomy; Postoperative Complications; Refraction, Ocular; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 33326173
DOI: 10.1111/aos.14704 -
Pain Physician Jul 2017Refractive surgery is a common procedure, but may be associated with severe post-operative pain. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Refractive surgery is a common procedure, but may be associated with severe post-operative pain.
OBJECTIVES
To describe studies addressing the use of opioids for control of pain after ocular surgery, with an emphasis on refractive surgery.
STUDY DESIGN
This is a narrative review of relevant articles on the physiology of corneal pain and the use of opioids for its treatment after surgery.
SETTING
Single tertiary center.
METHODS
A PubMed search was conducted for studies published from January 1985 to May 2015 on the physiopathology of corneal pain and opioid treatment of post-refractive surgical pain. Reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized clinical trials were included. Inclusion criteria focused on photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).
RESULTS
Authors found 109 articles through the search strategies. A total of 75 articles were included based on the inclusion criteria.
DISCUSSION
Pain after ocular surgery is likely to be a multifactorial phenomenon. A combination of topical and systemic analgesics is used to treat post-operative pain after refractive surgery. Pain may be severe during the first 72 to 96 hours, depending on the surgical procedure. No studies were found that directly analyze the benefits of opioids after PRK, although they are routinely prescribed in some centers.
LIMITATIONS
This is a narrative review in contrast to a systematic review and did not include studies indexed in databases other than PubMed.
CONCLUSIONS
Although opioids are used for the short-term treatment of post-operative pain in refractive surgery, their benefits and risks should be properly evaluated in randomized clinical trials before their use can be safely advised.
KEY WORDS
Photorefractive keratectomy, in situ keratomileusis, pain, analgesia, opioid, codeine, review.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Ophthalmologic Surgical Procedures; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 28727706
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Despite potential analgesic benefits from topical ophthalmic amides and esters, their outpatient use has become of concern because of the potential for abuse and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite potential analgesic benefits from topical ophthalmic amides and esters, their outpatient use has become of concern because of the potential for abuse and ophthalmic complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of topical ophthalmic anesthetics compared with placebo or other treatments in persons with corneal abrasions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; Embase.com; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), without restriction on language or year of publication. The search was performed on 10 February 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of topical ophthalmic anesthetics alone or in combination with another treatment (e.g. nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)) versus a non-anesthetic control group (e.g. placebo, non-treatment, or alternative treatment). We included trials that enrolled participants of all ages who had corneal abrasions within 48 hours of presentation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine parallel-group RCTs with a total of 556 participants (median number of participants per study: 45, interquartile range (IQR) 44 to 74), conducted in eight countries: Australia, Canada, France, South Korea, Turkey, New Zealand, UK, and USA. Study characteristics and risk of bias Four RCTs (314 participants) investigated post-traumatic corneal abrasions diagnosed in the emergency department setting. Five trials described 242 participants from ophthalmology surgery centers with post-surgical corneal defects: four from photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and one from pterygium surgery. Study duration ranged from two days to six months, the most common being one week (four RCTs). Treatment duration ranged from three hours to one week (nine RCTs); the majority were between 24 and 48 hours (five RCTs). The age of participants was reported in eight studies, ranging from 17 to 74 years of age. Only one participant in one trial was under 18 years of age. Of four studies that reported funding sources, none was industry-sponsored. We judged a high risk of bias in one trial with respect to the outcome pain control by 48 hours, and in five of seven trials with respect to the outcome complications at the furthest time point. The domain for which we assessed studies to be at the highest risk of bias was missing or selective reporting of outcome data. Findings The treatments investigated included topical anesthetics compared with placebo, topical anesthetic compared with NSAID (post-surgical cases), and topical anesthetics plus NSAID compared with placebo (post-surgical cases). Pain control by 24 hours In all studies, self-reported pain outcomes were on a 10-point scale, where lower numbers represent less pain. In post-surgical trials, topical anesthetics provided a moderate reduction in self-reported pain at 24 hours compared with placebo of 1.28 points on a 10-point scale (mean difference (MD) -1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.76 to -0.80; 3 RCTs, 119 participants). In the post-trauma participants, there may be little or no difference in effect (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.02; 1 RCT, 76 participants). Compared with NSAID in post-surgical participants, topical anesthetics resulted in a slight increase in pain at 24 hours (MD 0.82, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.63; 1 RCT, 74 participants). One RCT compared topical anesthetics plus NSAID to placebo. There may be a large reduction in pain at 24 hours with topical anesthetics plus NSAID in post-surgical participants, but the evidence to support this large effect is very uncertain (MD -5.72, 95% CI -7.35 to -4.09; 1 RCT, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pain control by 48 hours Compared with placebo, topical anesthetics reduced post-trauma pain substantially by 48 hours (MD -5.68, 95% CI -6.38 to -4.98; 1 RCT, 111 participants) but had little to no effect on post-surgical pain (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 44 participants), although the evidence is very uncertain. Pain control by 72 hours One post-surgical RCT showed little or no effect of topical anesthetics compared with placebo by 72 hours (MD 0.49, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.04; 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Proportion of participants with unresolved epithelial defects When compared with placebo or NSAID, topical anesthetics increased the number of participants without complete resolution of defects in trials of post-trauma participants (risk ratio (RR) 1.37, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.42; 3 RCTs, 221 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The proportion of placebo-treated post-surgical participants with unresolved epithelial defects at 24 to 72 hours was lower when compared with those assigned to topical anesthetics (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55; 1 RCT, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or topical anesthetics plus NSAID (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.85; 1 RCT, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Proportion of participants with complications at the longest follow-up When compared with placebo or NSAID, topical anesthetics resulted in a higher proportion of post-trauma participants with complications at up to two weeks (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.23 to 5.46; 3 RCTs, 242 participants) and post-surgical participants with complications at up to one week (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 128.02; 1 RCT, 44 participants). When topical anesthetic plus NSAID was compared with placebo, no complications were reported in either treatment arm up to one week post-surgery (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.12; 1 RCT, 30 participants). The evidence is very uncertain for safety outcomes. Quality of life None of the included trials assessed quality of life outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite topical anesthetics providing excellent pain control in the intraoperative setting, the currently available evidence provides little or no certainty about their efficacy for reducing ocular pain in the initial 24 to 72 hours after a corneal abrasion, whether from unintentional trauma or surgery. We have very low confidence in this evidence as a basis to recommend topical anesthetics as an efficacious treatment modality to relieve pain from corneal abrasions. We also found no evidence of a substantial effect on epithelial healing up to 72 hours or a reduction in ocular complications when we compared anesthetics alone or with NSAIDs versus placebo.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Young Adult; Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Anesthetics, Local; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Analgesics; Corneal Injuries; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37555621
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015091.pub2