PURPOSE: To compare laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) and LASIK for the correction of high myopia. METHODS: A prospective, single-masked study was conducted. Patients treated with LASEK to correct myopia > or = -7.00 diopters (D) (spherical equivalent manifest refraction) with a cylinder < or = -3.50 D (LASEK group) were compared to patients treated with LASIK (LASIK group) using the same excimer laser (Technolas 217C). Mitomycin C (MMC) 0.02% was applied for 1 minute in all LASEK-treated eyes. RESULTS: A total of 228 consecutive eyes were included in the study (114 in each group, matched for preoperative refraction). The mean preoperative spherical equivalent manifest refraction was -8.72 +/- 1.20 D in the LASEK group and -8.74 +/- 1.20 D in the LASIK group (range: -7.00 to -13.75 D) (P = .9). Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) was significantly lower in LASEK eyes 1, 7, and 30 days postoperatively (P = .0001 for each comparison). No significant differences were found at 3 months postoperatively in UCVA (P = .3), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) (P = .2), or in the safety (P = .6) and efficacy (P = .8) indices. Uncorrected visual acuity was 1.0 or better in 34.2% of LASEK eyes and 44.7% of LASIK eyes. Spherical refraction was +0.25 +/- 0.6 D after LASEK and -0.06 +/- 0.5 D after LASIK (P = .0001). Sixty-eight percent of LASEK eyes and 79% of LASIK eyes were within +/- 0.50 D of intended refraction. No LASEK eye versus 7 LASIK eyes lost 2 lines of BSCVA. Eight LASEK eyes gained 2 or more lines of BSCVA versus 1 LASIK eye. CONCLUSIONS:Visual improvement after LASEK with intraoperative MMC was significantly slower than after LASIK. Visual outcomes (UCVA, BSCVA, and safety and efficacy indices) 3 months after surgery were similar with both techniques for the correction of high myopia. Ten percent more eyes after LASIK were within +/- 0.50 D of intended refraction.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) and LASIK for the correction of high myopia. METHODS: A prospective, single-masked study was conducted. Patients treated with LASEK to correct myopia > or = -7.00 diopters (D) (spherical equivalent manifest refraction) with a cylinder < or = -3.50 D (LASEK group) were compared to patients treated with LASIK (LASIK group) using the same excimer laser (Technolas 217C). Mitomycin C (MMC) 0.02% was applied for 1 minute in all LASEK-treated eyes. RESULTS: A total of 228 consecutive eyes were included in the study (114 in each group, matched for preoperative refraction). The mean preoperative spherical equivalent manifest refraction was -8.72 +/- 1.20 D in the LASEK group and -8.74 +/- 1.20 D in the LASIK group (range: -7.00 to -13.75 D) (P = .9). Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) was significantly lower in LASEK eyes 1, 7, and 30 days postoperatively (P = .0001 for each comparison). No significant differences were found at 3 months postoperatively in UCVA (P = .3), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) (P = .2), or in the safety (P = .6) and efficacy (P = .8) indices. Uncorrected visual acuity was 1.0 or better in 34.2% of LASEK eyes and 44.7% of LASIK eyes. Spherical refraction was +0.25 +/- 0.6 D after LASEK and -0.06 +/- 0.5 D after LASIK (P = .0001). Sixty-eight percent of LASEK eyes and 79% of LASIK eyes were within +/- 0.50 D of intended refraction. No LASEK eye versus 7 LASIK eyes lost 2 lines of BSCVA. Eight LASEK eyes gained 2 or more lines of BSCVA versus 1 LASIK eye. CONCLUSIONS: Visual improvement after LASEK with intraoperative MMC was significantly slower than after LASIK. Visual outcomes (UCVA, BSCVA, and safety and efficacy indices) 3 months after surgery were similar with both techniques for the correction of high myopia. Ten percent more eyes after LASIK were within +/- 0.50 D of intended refraction.
Authors: Isabel Rodríguez-Pérez; Juan Gros-Otero; Miguel A Teus; Rafael Cañones; Montserrat García-González Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 2.209
Authors: Juan Gros-Otero; Montserrat Garcia-Gonzalez; Miguel A Teus; MariLuz Iglesias-Iglesias; Carlos Gimenez-Vallejo Journal: J Optom Date: 2016-10-14