PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, predictability, safety, and induced higher-order aberrations (HOAs) between wavefront-guided and non-wavefront-guided ablations. SETTING: Division of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom. DESIGN: Metaanalysis. METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMED, and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trails. Trials meeting the selection criteria were quality appraised and data extracted by 2 independent authors. Measures of association were pooled quantitatively using metaanalytical methods. Comparison between wavefront-guided and non-wavefront-guided ablations was measured as pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences. The pooled ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for efficacy, safety, and predictability. The weighted mean difference and 95% CIs were used to compare induced HOAs. RESULTS: Eight trials involving 955 eyes were included. After wavefront-guided LASIK, the pooled OR of achieving uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/20 (efficacy) was 1.10 (95% CI, 0.66-1.83; P=.72), the pooled OR of achieving a result within ± 0.50 diopter of intended target (predictability) was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.60-1.75; P=.92), and the weighted mean difference in induced HOAs was -0.09 (95% CI, -0.17 to -0.01; P=.04). No study reported loss of 2 or more lines of Snellen acuity (safety) with either modality. CONCLUSIONS: Metaanalysis showed no clear evidence of a benefit of wavefront-guided over non-wavefront-guided ablations. However, there was a lack of standardized reporting of UDVA better than 20/20, which might mask an advantage in wavefront-guided treatment. With high preexisting HOAs, wavefront-guided has advantages over non-wavefront-guided treatment.
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, predictability, safety, and induced higher-order aberrations (HOAs) between wavefront-guided and non-wavefront-guided ablations. SETTING: Division of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom. DESIGN: Metaanalysis. METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMED, and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trails. Trials meeting the selection criteria were quality appraised and data extracted by 2 independent authors. Measures of association were pooled quantitatively using metaanalytical methods. Comparison between wavefront-guided and non-wavefront-guided ablations was measured as pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences. The pooled ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for efficacy, safety, and predictability. The weighted mean difference and 95% CIs were used to compare induced HOAs. RESULTS: Eight trials involving 955 eyes were included. After wavefront-guided LASIK, the pooled OR of achieving uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/20 (efficacy) was 1.10 (95% CI, 0.66-1.83; P=.72), the pooled OR of achieving a result within ± 0.50 diopter of intended target (predictability) was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.60-1.75; P=.92), and the weighted mean difference in induced HOAs was -0.09 (95% CI, -0.17 to -0.01; P=.04). No study reported loss of 2 or more lines of Snellen acuity (safety) with either modality. CONCLUSIONS: Metaanalysis showed no clear evidence of a benefit of wavefront-guided over non-wavefront-guided ablations. However, there was a lack of standardized reporting of UDVA better than 20/20, which might mask an advantage in wavefront-guided treatment. With high preexisting HOAs, wavefront-guided has advantages over non-wavefront-guided treatment.