May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
Laser In Situ Keratomileusis Vs Photorefractive Keratectomy: A Systematic Review Of Safety And Efficacy
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • B.D. Allan
    Moorfields, London, United Kingdom
    Cornea,
  • A.J. Shortt
    Wound Healing, The Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
  • C. Bunce
    Moorfields, London, United Kingdom
    Research and Development,
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  B.D. Allan, None; A.J. Shortt, None; C. Bunce, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 544. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      B.D. Allan, A.J. Shortt, C. Bunce; Laser In Situ Keratomileusis Vs Photorefractive Keratectomy: A Systematic Review Of Safety And Efficacy . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):544.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To determine whether there is a difference in efficacy and safety between Laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of myopia.

Methods: : A literature review was performed using the Cochrane protocol to identify published randomized controlled trials comparing LASIK and PRK for correction of myopia. A meta–analysis was performed on the results of these trials. Additional, previously unpublished data was obtained from trial authors to enable comparison of defined outcomes. A retrospective comparison of FDA approval trials for lasers used to perform LASIK or PRK for correction of myopia was also undertaken. Key efficacy (+/–0.50 of target refraction, uncorrected visual acuity – UCVA ≥20/20) and safety outcomes (loss of 2 or more lines of best spectacle corrected visual acuity – BSCVA) were compared between studies.

Results: : Seven randomized controlled trials compared PRK (683 eyes) and LASIK (403 eyes) for correction of myopia. More LASIK patients achieved UCVA ≥20/20 at 6 months (p=0.009) and 12 months (p=0.01). Loss of ≥2 lines of BSCVA at 6 months was less frequent with LASIK (p=0.05). Data from 14 LASIK (7810 eyes) and 10 PRK (4414 eyes) FDA approval trials showed more LASIK patients achieved UCVA of 20/20 or better at 6 months (p=0.01), significantly more LASIK patients were within +/–0.50D of target refraction at 6 months post treatment (p<0.00001) and loss of ≥2 lines of BSCVA at 6 months was less frequent with LASIK (p<0.00001).

Conclusions: : LASIK may have superior efficacy and safety to PRK. Further trials employing contemporary equipment and techniques are needed to re–evaluate these findings.

Keywords: refractive surgery: LASIK • refractive surgery: PRK • myopia 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×