Literature DB >> 20709406

Meta-analysis: clinical outcomes of laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy and photorefractive keratectomy in myopia.

Li-Quan Zhao1, Rui-Li Wei, Jin-Wei Cheng, You Li, Ji-Ping Cai, Xiao-Ye Ma.   

Abstract

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.
Copyright © 2010 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20709406     DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.02.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmology        ISSN: 0161-6420            Impact factor:   12.079


  13 in total

1.  Development of biomedical publications on ametropia research in PubMed from 1845 to 2010: a bibliometric analysis.

Authors:  Chang-Tai Xu; Shan-Qu Li; Yong-Gang Lü; Bo-Rong Pan
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-02-18       Impact factor: 1.779

2.  Four-year to seven-year outcomes of advanced surface ablation with excimer laser for high myopia.

Authors:  Rasmus Søgaard Hansen; Niels Lyhne; Jakob Grauslund; Keea Treu Grønbech; Anders Højslet Vestergaard
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-01-13       Impact factor: 3.117

3.  Single-step transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy in high myopia: qualitative and quantitative visual functions.

Authors:  Soheil Adib-Moghaddam; Saeed Soleyman-Jahi; Fatemeh Adili-Aghdam; Samuel Arba Mosquera; Niloofar Hoorshad; Salar Tofighi
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-03-18       Impact factor: 1.779

4.  Factors affecting single-step transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy outcome in the treatment of mild, moderate, and high myopia: a cohort study.

Authors:  Mansour M Al-Mohaimeed
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-05-18       Impact factor: 1.645

5.  Laser-assisted subepithelial keratomileusis with mitomycin C for myopic astigmatism ≥2.00 diopters using a Zeiss MEL 80 Excimer.

Authors:  A Frings; B Vidic; Y El-Shabrawi; N Ardjomand
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-06-29       Impact factor: 2.031

Review 6.  Laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of myopia.

Authors:  Shi-Ming Li; Siyan Zhan; Si-Yuan Li; Xiao-Xia Peng; Jing Hu; Hua Andrew Law; Ning-Li Wang
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-02-22

Review 7.  Refractive surgery beyond 2020.

Authors:  Marcus Ang; Damien Gatinel; Dan Z Reinstein; Erik Mertens; Jorge L Alió Del Barrio; Jorge L Alió
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2020-07-24       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 8.  Laser-Assisted Subepithelial Keratectomy versus Laser In Situ Keratomileusis in Myopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Li-Quan Zhao; Huang Zhu; Liang-Mao Li
Journal:  ISRN Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-06-12

9.  Anterior segment optical coherence tomography evaluation of corneal epithelium healing time after 2 different surface ablation methods.

Authors:  Mustafa Eliaçik; Huseyin Bayramlar; Sevil K Erdur; Yunus Karabela; Goktug Demirci; Ibrahim G Gulkilik; Mustafa Ozsutcu
Journal:  Saudi Med J       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 1.484

Review 10.  Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) versus Femtosecond Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for Myopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Zeren Shen; Keda Shi; Yinhui Yu; Xiaoning Yu; Yuchen Lin; Ke Yao
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.