-
Ophthalmology Oct 2010To examine possible differences in clinical outcomes between laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for myopia. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To examine possible differences in clinical outcomes between laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for myopia.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients from previously reported randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative studies of LASEK and PRK with clinical outcomes.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration methodology to identify RCTs and comparative studies comparing LASEK and PRK for myopia.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Primary outcome parameters included uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better, manifest refractive spherical equivalent (SE) within ± 0.50 diopters (D), final refractive SE, and final UCVA of 20/40 or worse. Secondary outcome parameters included healing time of corneal epithelium, postoperative pain, and corneal haze.
RESULTS
Twelve studies were identified and used for comparing PRK (499 eyes) with LASEK (512 eyes) for myopia. There were no significant differences in odds ratio (OR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and standardized mean difference (SMD) in the primary and secondary outcome measures. The final mean refractive SE (WMD, 0.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.08 to 0.07; P = 0.95), manifest refractive SE within ± 0.50 D of the target (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.63-1.29; P = 0.56), patients achieving UCVA of 20/20 or better (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.61-1.20; P = 0.37), final UCVA of 20/40 or worse (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.63-2.51; P = 0.52), re-epithelialization time (WMD, 0.08; 95% CI, -0.44 to 0.59; P = 0.77), and postoperative pain (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.72; P = 0.27) were analyzed. However, LASEK-treated eyes showed less corneal haze at 1 month after surgery (WMD, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.10-0.39; P = 0.0007) and 3 months after surgery (WMD, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.01-0.26; P = 0.03) compared with PRK. No statistically significant difference was observed between the 2 groups at 6 months after surgery (WMD, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.30; P = 0.08).
CONCLUSIONS
In this meta-analysis, LASEK-treated eyes had no significant benefits over PRK-treated ones with regard to clinical outcomes. Less corneal haze was observed in LASEK-treated eyes at 1 to 3 months after surgery.
Topics: Corneal Opacity; Epithelium, Corneal; Humans; Keratectomy, Subepithelial, Laser-Assisted; Myopia; Odds Ratio; Pain, Postoperative; Photorefractive Keratectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Refraction, Ocular; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Visual Acuity; Wound Healing
PubMed: 20709406
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.02.004 -
Journal of Cataract and Refractive... May 2021Twenty-eight case reports and case series published between 2000 and 2019 concerning laser refractive surgery in patients with corneal dystrophies, resulting in 173 eyes...
Twenty-eight case reports and case series published between 2000 and 2019 concerning laser refractive surgery in patients with corneal dystrophies, resulting in 173 eyes from 94 patients, were included in this systematic review. Best results were achieved in posterior corneal polymorphous and Cogan dystrophy. Unfavorable results were found in Avellino dystrophy and Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD). Photorefractive keratectomy was not indicated in Meesmann and Avellino dystrophy. Laser in situ keratomileusis was indicated in posterior polymorphous corneal dystrophy but not in FECD, Avellino, or Cogan dystrophy. Small-incision lenticule extraction and other dystrophies such as lattice, fleck, Lisch, or François did not achieve enough scientific evidence to report any recommendation.
Topics: Cornea; Corneal Dystrophies, Hereditary; Humans; Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ; Lasers, Excimer; Photorefractive Keratectomy
PubMed: 33149045
DOI: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000468 -
Ophthalmic Research 2023Phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK) has been increasingly used to treat severe recurrent corneal erosion syndrome (RCES) patients who do not respond to other treatments.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK) has been increasingly used to treat severe recurrent corneal erosion syndrome (RCES) patients who do not respond to other treatments. However, the efficacy and complication of each study are currently uncertain due to varying rates.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of the PTK for recurrent corneal erosions.
METHODS
This article performed a systematic literature research in Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science for the literature on PTK treatment of RCES until December 20, 2022. The extracted data including recurrence rate and the adverse event rate were used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The recurrence rate was 18% (95% CI, 13%-24%) (129/700 eyes). Subgroup analysis showed that the RCE recurrence was 17% (95% CI, 9%-24%) after trauma and 22% (95% CI, 11%-32%) in the corneal dystrophy group. Treatment-related adverse events included subepithelial haze, hyperopic shift, and decrease of the best spectacle-corrected visual acuity. In this study, the incidence of these events was 13% (95% CI, 6%-21%), 20% (95% CI, 11%-28%), and 11% (95% CI, 5%-16%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
PTK represented a valuable treatment option for patients with recurrent corneal erosions, especially those with traumatic injuries, which had minimal side effects.
Topics: Humans; Lasers, Excimer; Follow-Up Studies; Visual Acuity; Photorefractive Keratectomy; Corneal Dystrophies, Hereditary; Cornea; Corneal Ulcer; Recurrence; Treatment Outcome; Corneal Diseases
PubMed: 37490883
DOI: 10.1159/000533160 -
Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology.... Apr 2020To examine and compare the rates of dry eye after various refractive surgeries, including laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), photorefractive keratectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To examine and compare the rates of dry eye after various refractive surgeries, including laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), femtosecond lamellar extraction (FLEx), and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. Databases searched included MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Meeting abstracts from European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons, American Academy of Ophthalmology, Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, and Canadian Ophthalmological Society were also examined. Articles underwent 3 stages of screening before data extraction and meta-analysis.
RESULTS
In total, 3232 studies were found; 261 remained after title screening, 92 remained after abstract screening, and 14 studies progressed to data extraction. Meta-analysis indicated a significant reduction in tear break-up time (TBUT) with LASIK (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.3; confidence interval [CI]: -0.53 to -0.08) and FLEx (SMD = -1.09; CI: -1.44 to -0.74), and a nonsignificant reduction in TBUT with SMILE (SMD = -0.34; CI: -0.95 to 0.27) and PRK (SMD = -0.11; CI: -0.29 to 0.08). Meta-analysis also indicated a significant reduction in tear production with LASIK (SMD = -0.23; CI: -0.46 to -0.01), and a nonsignificant reduction in tear production with SMILE (SMD = 0.04; CI: -0.28 to 0.36), FLEX (SMD = -0.05; CI: -0.37 to 0.28), and PRK (SMD = -0.07; CI: -0.32 to 0.19).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, a significant reduction in postoperative tear production as well as TBUT time was seen with LASIK, and a nonsignificant reduction in postoperative tear production and TBUT was seen with SMILE, FLEx, and PRK. Ultimately, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to make concrete conclusions about dry eye parameters after refractive surgery.
Topics: Corneal Surgery, Laser; Dry Eye Syndromes; Humans; Tears; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 31712000
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2019.07.005 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2012Hyperopia, or hypermetropia (also known as long-sightedness or far-sightedness), is the condition where the unaccommodating eye brings parallel light to a focus behind... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Hyperopia, or hypermetropia (also known as long-sightedness or far-sightedness), is the condition where the unaccommodating eye brings parallel light to a focus behind the retina instead of on it. Hyperopia can be corrected with both non-surgical and surgical methods, among them photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser assisted In situ keratomileusis (LASIK). There is uncertainty as to whether hyperopic-PRK or hyperopic-LASIK is the better method.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this review were to determine whether PRK or LASIK leads to more reliable, stable and safe results when correcting a hyperopic refractive error.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1950 to February 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2012), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to February 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 17 February 2012. When trials are included in the review we will search the reference lists of the studies included in the review for information about further trials. We will use the Science Citation Index to search for papers that cite any studies included in this review. We did not handsearch journals or conference proceedings specifically for this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PRK against LASIK for correction of hyperopia and then perform a sensitivity analysis of pre- and post-millennial trials since this is the mid-point in the history of both PRK and LASIK.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We did not identify any studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review.
MAIN RESULTS
As no studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, we discussed the results of non-randomised trials comparing hyperopic-PRK with hyperopic-LASIK.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No robust, reliable conclusions could be reached, but the non-randomised trials reviewed appear to be in agreement that hyperopic-PRK and hyperopic-LASIK are of comparable efficacy. High quality, well-planned open RCTs are needed in order to obtain a robust clinical evidence base.
Topics: Humans; Hyperopia; Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ; Photorefractive Keratectomy
PubMed: 22696365
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007112.pub3 -
Ophthalmic Research 2022Accommodative esotropia (AET) is characterized by an esodeviation of the eyes due to uncorrected hyperopia, deficient fusional divergence, or high accommodative...
INTRODUCTION
Accommodative esotropia (AET) is characterized by an esodeviation of the eyes due to uncorrected hyperopia, deficient fusional divergence, or high accommodative convergence. Decreasing hyperopia would reduce accommodative convergence and strabismus. We sought to review the existing evidence regarding the outcomes of refractive surgery in patients with AET.
METHODS
A four-database search (Pubmed, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus) was performed from inception to March 2021 using the following MeSH terms: ("Refractive Surgical Procedures" OR "Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ" OR "Photorefractive Keratectomy" OR "Lens Implantation, Intraocular") AND ("Esotropia" OR "Accommodative Esotropia" OR "Refractive Esotropia" OR "Accommodative Strabismus"). No meta-analysis was performed due to studies' heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies including 22 case series enrolling 378 patients and 6 case reports enrolling 8 patients were selected among 185 original abstracts. In the case series, a total of 378 patients (726 eyes) were recruited with an age range of 8-52 years. All studies reported mean follow-up periods of at least 12 months. Photorefractive keratectomy was performed in 7 studies, laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis in 9 studies, laser-assisted sub-epithelial keratectomy was reported in 1 study, and 3 studies implanted intraocular lenses, including iris-fixated and collamer. Considering the adult patients with a preoperative corrected esodeviation ≤10 prism diopters (PD) (n = 129), all but 5 (3.9%) presented orthophoria or ≤10PD after refractive surgery. All children but 4 (4.5%) ended up with an esodeviation ≤10PD after surgery with those exceptions being in the range of 11-15PD. Six case reports were included in this review, comprising a total of 8 patients (16 eyes) with an age range of 7-34 years and a follow-up range of 4-48 months. Six case reports were included in this review, comprising a total of 8 patients (16 eyes) with an age range of 7-34 years and a follow-up range of 4-48 months.
CONCLUSION
Evidence produced so far points out that refractive surgery may be an alternative for spectacle correction for adults with AET ≤10PD. There is not enough evidence to recommend its use for patients under 18 years of age. The safety and predictability of these procedures for this purpose remains unclear as the selection criteria used for these patients are much different than the usual indications and there are no studies with long-term follow-up.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Middle Aged; Young Adult; Esotropia; Hyperopia; Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ; Refraction, Ocular; Strabismus; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 35226900
DOI: 10.1159/000523816 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2006Myopia (also known as short-sightedness or near-sightedness) is an ocular condition in which the refractive power of the eye is greater than is required, resulting in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Myopia (also known as short-sightedness or near-sightedness) is an ocular condition in which the refractive power of the eye is greater than is required, resulting in light from distant objects being focused in front of the retina instead of directly on it. The two most commonly used surgical techniques to permanently correct myopia are photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK).
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review was to compare the effectiveness and safety of PRK and LASIK for correction of myopia.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2005, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2005), EMBASE (1980 to September 2005) and LILACs (1982 to 3 November 2005). We also searched the reference lists of the studies and the Science Citation Index.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing PRK and LASIK for correction of any degree of myopia. We also included data on adverse events from prospective multicentre consecutive case series in the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) trials database (http//www.fda.gov/cdrh/LASIK/lasers.htm).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were summarised using odds ratio and mean difference. Odds ratios were combined using a random-effects model after testing for heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included six randomised controlled trials involving a total of 417 eyes, of which 201 were treated with PRK and 216 with LASIK. We found that although LASIK gives a faster visual recovery than PRK, the effectiveness of these two procedures is comparable. We found some evidence that LASIK may be less likely than PRK to result in loss of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
LASIK gives a faster visual recovery than PRK but the effectiveness of these two procedures is comparable. Further trials using contemporary techniques are required to determine whether LASIK and PRK are equally safe.
Topics: Humans; Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ; Lasers, Excimer; Myopia; Photorefractive Keratectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 16625626
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005135.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2009Hyperopia, or hypermetropia (also known as long-sightedness or far-sightedness), is the condition where the unaccommodating eye brings parallel light to a focus behind... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hyperopia, or hypermetropia (also known as long-sightedness or far-sightedness), is the condition where the unaccommodating eye brings parallel light to a focus behind the retina instead of on it. Hyperopia can be corrected with both non-surgical and surgical methods, among them photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser assisted In situ keratomileusis (LASIK). There is uncertainty as to whether hyperopic-PRK or hyperopic-LASIK is the better method.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this review were to determine whether PRK or LASIK leads to more reliable, stable and safe results when correcting a hyperopic refractive error.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1950 to January 2009), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2009) and LILACS (January 1982 to January 2009). There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 13 January 2009. We also searched the reference lists of the studies included in the review for information about further trials and used the Science Citation Index to search for papers that cite any studies included in this review. We did not handsearch journals or conference proceedings specifically for this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PRK against LASIK for correction of hyperopia and then perform a sensitivity analysis of pre- and post-millennial trials since this is the mid-point in the history of both PRK and LASIK.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We did not identify any studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review.
MAIN RESULTS
As no studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, we discussed the results of non-randomised trials comparing hyperopic-PRK with hyperopic-LASIK.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No robust, reliable conclusions could be reached, but the non-randomised trials reviewed appear to be in agreement that hyperopic-PRK and hyperopic-LASIK are of comparable efficacy. High quality, well-planned open RCTs are needed in order to obtain a robust clinical evidence base.
Topics: Humans; Hyperopia; Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ; Photorefractive Keratectomy
PubMed: 19370672
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007112.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2013Myopia (also known as short-sightedness or near-sightedness) is an ocular condition in which the refractive power of the eye is greater than is required, resulting in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Myopia (also known as short-sightedness or near-sightedness) is an ocular condition in which the refractive power of the eye is greater than is required, resulting in light from distant objects being focused in front of the retina instead of directly on it. The two most commonly used surgical techniques to permanently correct myopia are photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK).
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of LASIK and PRK for correction of myopia by examining post-treatment uncorrected visual acuity, refractive outcome, loss of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, pain scores, flap complications in LASIK, subepithelial haze, adverse events, quality of life indices and higher order aberrations.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 11), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to November 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2012), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to November 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the 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 November 2012. We also searched the reference lists of the studies and the Science Citation Index.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing LASIK and PRK for the correction of any degree of myopia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We summarised data using the odds ratio and mean difference. We combined odds ratios using a random-effects model after testing for heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 trials (1135 participants, 1923 eyes) in this review. Nine of these trials randomised eyes to treatment, two trials randomised people to treatment and treated both eyes, and two trials randomised people to treatment and treated one eye. None of the paired trials reported an appropriate paired analysis. We considered the overall quality of evidence to be low for most outcomes because of the risk of bias in the included trials. There was evidence that LASIK gives a faster visual recovery than PRK and is a less painful technique. Results at one year after surgery were comparable: most analyses favoured LASIK but they were not statistically significant.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
LASIK gives a faster visual recovery and is a less painful technique than PRK. The two techniques appear to give similar outcomes one year after surgery. Further trials using contemporary techniques are required to determine whether LASIK and PRK as currently practised are equally safe. Randomising eyes to treatment is an efficient design, but only if analysed properly. In future trials, more efforts could be made to mask the assessment of outcome.
Topics: Humans; Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ; Lasers, Excimer; Myopia; Pain; Photorefractive Keratectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23440799
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005135.pub3 -
Translational Vision Science &... May 2019To evaluate the efficacy of the functional, keratometric, and refractive postoperative parameters of intracorneal ring segment (ICRS) implantation in keratoconus and its... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the efficacy of the functional, keratometric, and refractive postoperative parameters of intracorneal ring segment (ICRS) implantation in keratoconus and its association with collagen cross-linking (CXL), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), and intraocular lenses (IOLs).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on case series published between 2007 and 2017.
RESULTS
We included 95 case series with a total of 4560 patients. We included 64 studies of the ICRS procedure, 20 studies of ICRS+CXL, 9 studies of ICRS+CXL+PRK, and 5 studies of ICRS+IOL. We demonstrated an overall improvement of all parameters in all procedures. Cylinder was decreased with an overall effect size (ES) of -1.15 (-1.36 to -0.95; I = 93.7%). Corrected distance visual acuity was improved with an overall ES of 0.89 (0.78 to 1.00; I = 81.9%). Maximal keratometry was decreased with an overall ES of 0.98 (0.85 to 1.11; I = 78.9%). ICRS+IOL is the best procedure to improve spherical equivalent and uncorrected distance visual acuity ( < 0.05) compared with other procedures. ICRSs versus ICRS+CXL are similar in all parameters except for corrected distance visual acuity. ICRS+CXL+PRK is better than ICRS alone in all parameters except for the correction of spherical equivalent.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the quality and strength of the data are questionable, ICRS implantation is an effective strategy to preserve visual function in keratoconic patients. Particularly, ICRS+CXL+PRK could be a low invasive procedure to propose to young keratoconic patients.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE
To propose an overview of postoperative parameters on each ICRS procedure on keratoconus.
PubMed: 31211003
DOI: 10.1167/tvst.8.3.38