Spherical and aspherical photorefractive keratectomy and laser in-situ keratomileusis for moderate to high myopia: two prospective, randomized clinical trials. Summit technology PRK-LASIK study group.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the outcomes of single-zone photorefractive keratectomy (SZPRK), aspherical photorefractive keratectomy (ASPRK), and laser in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for the correction of myopia between -6 and -12 diopters.
DESIGN: Two simultaneous prospective, randomized, multi-center clinical trials. PARTICIPANTS: 286 first-treated eyes of 286 patients enrolled in one of two studies. In Study I, 134 eyes were randomized to SZPRK (58 eyes) or ASPRK (76 eyes). In Study II, 152 eyes were randomized to ASPRK (76 eyes) or to LASIK (76 eyes). INTERVENTION: All eyes received spherical one-pass excimer laser ablation as part of PRK or LASIK performed with the Summit Technologies Apex laser under an investigational device exemption, with attempted corrections between -6 and -12 diopters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data on uncorrected and best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, predictability and stability of refraction, and complications were analyzed. Follow-up was 12 months.
RESULTS: At 1 month postoperatively, more eyes in the LASIK group achieved 20/20 and 20/25 or better uncorrected visual acuity than PRK-treated eyes; at the 20/25 or better level, the difference was significant for LASIK (29/76 eyes, 38%) over SZPRK (10/58 eyes, 17%) (P = .0064). At all subsequent postoperative intervals, no difference was seen between treatment groups. Similarly, best corrected visual acuities were better for LASIK than all PRK eyes at 1 month postoperatively, and LASIK was better than SZPRK at 3 months follow-up (e.g., for 20/20 or better at 1 month, LASIK 50/76 eyes (66%) versus SZPRK 24/57 eyes (42%), P = .0066). PRK eyes had a mean loss of BCVA through 6 months, while LASIK eyes had a slight gain of mean BCVA through month 6; at 12 months, both ASPRK groups but not SZPRK continued to have a small mean loss of BCVA (e.g., compared to preoperative, mean BCVA at 12 months for SZPRK was + 0.3, LASIK was +.21, ASPRK I was -0.11, and ASPRK II -0.31 (SZPRK versus ASPRK II, P = .0116). Predictability was better for PRK than LASIK at all follow-up intervals (e.g., for manifest refraction spherical equivalent +/- 1.0 diopters at 6 months, ASPRK I 42/62 eyes (68%) versus LASIK 29/72 eyes (40%), P = .0014%). Stability was slightly but insignificantly less in the LASIK eyes compared to PRK eyes. All visual outcome measures were better for eyes with preoperative myopia between -6 and -8.9 D compared with eyes with myopia between -9 and -12 D. No consistent differences in refractive outcomes or postoperative corneal haze were seen between aspherical and single-zone ablations; haze diminished over 12 months and was judged to be vision-impairing in only one ASPRK eye. Microkeratome and flap complications occurred in 4 eyes, resulting in delay of completion of the procedure in 3 eyes but not causing long-term impairment.
CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in uncorrected visual acuity and return of best corrected visual acuity was more rapid for LASIK than PRK, but efficacy outcomes in the longer term through 12 months were similar for all treatment groups. LASIK eyes tended toward undercorrection with the nomogram employed in this study compared to PRK, but the scatter was similar, suggesting little difference between these procedures for most patients by 6 months and thereafter. No consistent advantage was demonstrated between aspherical and single-zone ablation patterns. Predictability was much better for all procedures for corrections of -6 to -8.9 D compared with -9 to -12 D. Sporadic loss of best corrected vision in the PRK eyes not found in the LASIK eyes and other measures of visual function require further study.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes