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

Identification and critical appraisal of evidence for interventions for refractive error to support the development of the WHO package of eye care interventions: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines

Purpose

The World Health Organization is developing a Package of Eye Care Interventions (PECI) to support the integration of eye health care into national health programmes. Interventions included in the PECI should be based on robust evidence where available. Refractive error is a leading cause of blindness and vision impairment and is a PECI priority condition. The aim of this study was to provide high‐quality evidence to support the development of the PECI by identifying and critically appraising clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and extracting recommendations for refractive error interventions.

Methods

We searched for CPGs on refractive error published in the last 10 years. We conducted the searches initially in February and March 2019 and repeated them in March 2020. We evaluated the quality of potentially relevant guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool.

Results

We identified 12 high‐quality CPGs relevant to refractive error, written by six organisations from three high‐income countries. Organisations used a variety of frameworks to assess the strength of recommendations based on available evidence, with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) being most common. Vision screening for children aged 3 to 5 years was recommended consistently. Evidence for screening and eye evaluations at other ages was weaker, although ophthalmic professional organisations consistently recommended regular evaluations. Recommendations on optical and laser correction of refractive error were limited and did not consider implications for low resource settings. Interventions for slowing myopia progression in children were recommended, but these will need regular updating as new evidence emerges.

Conclusions

Current high‐quality guidelines on refractive error have been formulated in high‐income countries. Recommendations focused on prevention and treatment of refractive error in low‐and middle‐income countries are lacking. Regular updating of systematic reviews and CPGs is essential to ensure that robust evidence is promptly appraised and incorporated into recommendations for eye health care practitioners.

Small Incision Lenticule Extraction for Correction of Pediatric Unilateral Anisometropic Myopia

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effects of femtosecond laser small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) on treating unilateral myopic anisometropia in children with spectacles or contact lens intolerance.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study that included children with unilateral myopic anisometropic amblyopia who underwent a SMILE procedure at Alpha Vision Center, Zagazig, Egypt, from January 2014 to December 2016.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-four eyes of 124 patients were included in this study. The postoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) at the 3-month and 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-year follow-up visits improved significantly (P < .05) compared to the preoperative CDVA, indicating the safety of the procedure. At the 3-month postoperative visit, 23% of cases showed improvement of one or more lines of CDVA, whereas only 2% of cases showed a decline of only one line. Moreover, the postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity compared favorably to the preoperative CDVA, denoting the efficacy of the refractive correction. The spherical equivalent was within ±0.50 diopters of the intended correction in 75% of the cases and within ±1.00 diopters in 89% of the cases. The intraoperative complications were scarce and relatively innocuous.

CONCLUSIONS

SMILE is a safe and effective alternative method for correcting myopic anisometropic amblyopia in children with spectacles or contact lens intolerance with good refractive results. A larger study with longer follow-up periods is necessary to determine the long-term effects of SMILE. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(8):510-515.].

Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy to treat mild myopia

PURPOSE

To assess the safety and effectiveness of transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (T-PRK) in patients with mild myopia using the Schwind Amaris 750 s Excimer laser system which take corneal epithelium variability in consideration during ablation.

METHODS

A prospective case series study of patients with mild myopia with or without astigmatism (spherical equivalent ≤ -3 diopters), who underwent T-PRK as a single-step treatment, was carried out at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Riyadh between May 2017 and January 2018. The main outcomes included postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), residual refraction (manifest refraction) and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 42 patients (84 eyes) underwent bilateral T-PRK with a preoperative spherical equivalent ranging from - 0.75 to - 3.00 D. Median spherical equivalent before Trans-PRK was - 1.75 (- 1.25to - 1.75). The spherical equivalent six months after Trans-PRK was 0.0 (- 0.25 to 0.5). All patients had a postoperative UDVA of 20/20 or better in the last follow-up. Transient postoperative corneal haze was observed in five eyes (6%).

CONCLUSION

T-PRK appears to be safe and effective in patients who have mild myopia, with or without astigmatism. The normal variation in corneal epithelial thickness seems not to affect the outcomes.

Changes in Intraocular Pressure after Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy and Femtosecond Laser In Situ Keratomileusis

PURPOSE

To investigate the changes in intraocular pressure (IOP) and biomechanically corrected IOP (bIOP) in patients undergoing transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (TPRK) and femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and to determine the effects of preoperative biomechanical factors on IOP and bIOP changes after FS-LASIK and TPRK.

DESIGN

A retrospective comparative study.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated the IOP and corneal biomechanical changes in 93 eyes undergoing FS-LASIK and 104 eyes undergoing TPRK in a clinical setting. Preoperative and postoperative data on ophthalmic and Corvis ST examinations, in vivo Young's modulus, and noncontact tonometry were analyzed. Marginal linear regression models with generalized estimating equations were used for intragroup and intergroup comparisons of IOP and bIOP changes.

RESULTS

In the univariate model, IOP reduction after FS-LASIK was 2.49 mmHg higher than that after TPRK. In addition, bIOP reduction after FS-LASIK was 1.85 mmHg higher than that after TPRK. In the multiple regression model, we revealed that IOP reduction after FS-LASIK was 1.75 mmHg higher than that after TPRK. Additionally, bIOP reduction after FS-LASIK was 1.64 mmHg higher than that after TPRK. Postoperative changes in bIOP were less than those in IOP. In addition, Young's modulus and CBI had no significant effect on postoperative IOP and bIOP changes. We establish a biomechanically predictive model using the available data to predict postoperative IOP and bIOP changes after TPRK and FS-LASIK.

CONCLUSIONS

Reductions in IOP and bIOP after FS-LASIK were 1.75 mmHg and 1.64 mmHg, respectively, more than those after TPRK, after adjustment for confounders. We revealed that the type of refractive surgery and peak distance (PD) were significant predictors of postoperative IOP and bIOP changes. By contrast, depth of ablation showed a significant effect on only IOP changes.

Wavefront excimer laser refractive surgery for adults with refractive errors

BACKGROUND

Refractive errors (conditions in which the eye fails to focus objects accurately on the retina due to defects in the refractive system), are the most common cause of visual impairment. Myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism are low-order aberrations, usually corrected with spectacles, contact lenses, or conventional refractive surgery. Higher-order aberrations (HOAs) can be quantified with wavefront aberration instruments and corrected using wavefront-guided or wavefront-optimized laser surgery. Wavefront-guided ablations are based on preoperative measurements of HOAs; wavefront-optimized ablations are designed to minimize induction of new HOAs while preserving naturally occurring aberrations. Two wavefront procedures are expected to produce better visual acuity than conventional procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to compare effectiveness and safety of wavefront procedures, laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) or laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) versus corresponding conventional procedures, for correcting refractive errors in adults for postoperative uncorrected visual acuity, residual refractive errors, and residual HOAs. The secondary objective was to compare two wavefront procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2019, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS); the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 6 August 2019. We imposed no restrictions by language or year of publication. We used the Science Citation Index (September 2013) and searched the reference lists of included trials to identify additional relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing either wavefront modified with conventional refractive surgery or wavefront-optimized with wavefront-guided refractive surgery in participants aged ⪰ 18 years with refractive errors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 33 RCTs conducted in Asia, Europe and United States, totaling 1499 participants (2797 eyes). Participants had refractive errors ranging from high myopia to low hyperopia. Studies reported at least one of the following review-specific outcomes based on proportions of eyes: with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better, without loss of one or more lines of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), within ± 0.50 diopters (D) of target refraction, with HOAs and adverse events. Study characteristics and risk of bias Participants were mostly women, mean age 29 and 53 years, and without previous refractive surgery, ocular pathology or systemic comorbidity. We could not judge risks of bias for most domains of most studies. Most studies in which both eyes of a participant were analyzed failed to account for correlations between two eyes in the analysis and reporting of outcomes. Findings For the primary comparison between wavefront (PRK or LASIK or LASEK) and corresponding conventional procedures, 12-month outcome data were available from only one study of PRK with 70 participants. No evidence of more favorable outcomes of wavefront PRK on proportion of eyes: with UCVA of 20/20 or better (risk ratio [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.24); without loss of one or more lines of BSCVA (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09); within ± 0.5 D of target refraction (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.24); and mean spherical equivalent (mean difference [MD] 0.04, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.18). The evidence for each effect estimate was of low certainty. No study reported HOAs at 12 months. At six months, the findings of two to eight studies showed that overall effect estimates and estimates by subgroup of PRK or LASIK or LASEK were consistent with those for PRK at 12 month, and suggest no difference in all outcomes. The certainty of evidence for each outcome was low. For the comparison between wavefront-optimized and wavefront-guided procedures at 12 months, the overall effect estimates for proportion of eyes: with UCVA of 20/20 or better (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.02; 5 studies, 618 participants); without loss of one or more lines of BSCVA (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.02; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 622 participants); within ± 0.5 diopters of target refraction (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09; I² = 33%; 4 studies, 480 participants) and mean HOAs (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.07; I² = 41%; 5 studies, 622 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between the two groups. Owing to substantial heterogeneity, we did not calculate an overall effect estimate for mean spherical equivalent at 12 months, but point estimates consistently suggested no difference between wavefront-optimized PRK versus wavefront-guided PRK. However, wavefront-optimized LASIK compared with wavefront-guided LASIK may improve mean spherical equivalent (MD -0.14 D, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.09; 4 studies, 472 participants). All effect estimates were of low certainty of evidence. At six months, the results were consistent with those at 12 months based on two to six studies. The findings suggest no difference between two wavefront procedures for any of the outcomes assessed, except for the subgroup of wavefront-optimized LASIK which showed probable improvement in mean spherical equivalent (MD -0.12 D, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.05; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 280 participants; low certainty of evidence) relative to wavefront-guided LASIK. We found a single study comparing wavefront-guided LASIK versus wavefront-guided PRK at six and 12 months. At both time points, effect estimates consistently supported no difference between two procedures. The certain of evidence was very low for all estimates. Adverse events Significant visual loss or optical side effects that were reported were similar between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that at 12 months and six months postoperatively, there was no important difference between wavefront versus conventional refractive surgery or between wavefront-optimized versus wavefront-guided surgery in the clinical outcomes analyzed. The low certainty of the cumulative evidence reported to date suggests that further randomized comparisons of these surgical approaches would provide more precise estimates of effects but are unlikely to modify our conclusions. Future trials may elect to focus on participant-reported outcomes such as satisfaction with vision before and after surgery and effects of remaining visual aberrations, in addition to contrast sensitivity and clinical outcomes analyzed in this review.

Refractive, visual, and subjective quality of vision outcomes for very high myopia LASIK from - 10.00 to - 13.50 diopters

Background

To evaluate laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) outcomes, subjective quality of vision (QoV) and patient satisfaction in eyes with very high myopia (VHM) above − 10.00 diopters (D).

Methods

Consecutive myopic and myopic-astigmatism eyes with spherical equivalent (SEQ) ranging between − 10.00 to − 13.50 D underwent LASIK with the WaveLight® Allegretto Wave® Eye-Q 400 Hz excimer laser. Treatment accuracy, efficacy, safety, stability, cylinder vectors, and higher-order aberrations were evaluated, together with subjective QoV and night vision disturbances (NVDs).

Results

114 eyes had a preoperative SEQ of − 11.02 ± 0.81 D, with a median follow-up of 24 months. A total of 72, 84, and 94% of eyes were within ± 0.50, ± 0.75 and ± 1.00 D of intended SEQ (R² = 0.71). The efficacy index was 0.93 ± 0.20, with 51 and 81% of eyes achieving 20/20 and 20/25. The astigmatism correction index was 0.95 ± 0.33. The safety index was 1.05 ± 0.12. The average myopic regression was − 0.51 ± 0.38 D. Preoperative QoV scores improved significantly postoperatively (7.5 ± 0.8 vs. 9.1 ± 0.7; P <  0.001), with less NVDs (P <  0.001). Total, spherical and coma root mean square (RMS) postoperative ocular higher-order aberrations were 1.07 ± 0.34, 0.67 ± 0.25, and 0.70 ± 0.40 μm.

Conclusions

Very high myopia LASIK between − 10.00 to − 13.50 D is safe and results in good visual outcomes, with high patient satisfaction and a significant improvement in patient-reported QoV after surgery. Appropriately selected patients within this very high myopia group can be included as LASIK candidates.

Use of topical bromfenac for treating ocular pain and inflammation beyond cataract surgery: a review of published studies

Topical ophthalmic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to treat postoperative inflammation and pain following cataract surgery and for treatment and prophylaxis of pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (CME). Bromfenac is a brominated NSAID with strong in vitro anti-inflammatory potency. Like other ophthalmic NSAIDs, bromfenac is often used outside of the cataract surgery setting. This paper provides an overview of bromfenac’s preclinical ocular pharmacology and pharmacokinetics, followed by a review of 23 published clinical studies in which various marketed bromfenac formulations were used for conditions other than cataract surgery or pseudophakic CME. These include: post-refractive eye surgery; macular edema associated with diabetes, uveitis, or retinal vein occlusion; inflammation associated with age-related macular degeneration; pain related to intravitreal injections; and other ocular anterior segment and surface disorders with an inflammatory component. The published evidence reviewed supports the safety and effectiveness of bromfenac in these additional ophthalmic indications. Bromfenac was well tolerated when given alone or in combination with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents, topical corticosteroids, or topical mast-cell stabilizers. The most common adverse event reported was ocular irritation. No serious adverse events (ie, corneal epithelial disorders) were reported, although the majority of studies did not systematically evaluate potential side effects. Corneal complications, such as melts reported with diclofenac and ketorolac, were not observed with bromfenac in the studies. In summary, published study data support the clinical utility of bromfenac in various ocular disorders beyond post-cataract surgery. Additional studies are warranted to further define the potential role of bromfenac ophthalmic solution in clinical practice.

Clinical Evaluation of LASEK for High Myopia Correction between the Triple-A Profile and the Zyoptix Tissue Saving Profile

Purpose

To compare the effects of correcting high myopia using the MEL®90 Triple-A profile LASEK at a 500 Hz pulse rate (Triple-A group) versus the Zyoptix tissue-saving ablations of Technolas 217z laser platform at 100 Hz (TS group).

Methods

This retrospective study included 50 eyes in the Triple-A group and 42 eyes in the TS group with manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) of -6 diopters (D) to -10 D. We compared uncorrected distance visual acuity, MRSE, corrected distance visual acuity, and postoperative complications at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months.

Results

At 6 months after refractive surgery, the efficacy index of Triple-A group was significantly higher than that of the TS group (1.03 ± 0.12 vs 1.00 ± 0.11, P=0.04). The MRSE postoperatively in the Triple-A group was significantly lower than that in the TS group (0.25 ± 0.18 vs 0.38 ± 0.23, P < 0.01). The safety indices in the two groups were almost the same after 6 months of surgery (1.03 ± 0.07 vs 1.04 ± 0.11, P=0.63). The proportion of eyes which achieved ±0.13 D was significantly higher in the Triple-A group than that in the TS group at 1 month (80% vs 59.5%, P=0.03), 3 months (82% vs 61.9%, P=0.03) and 6 months (84% vs 64.3%, P=0.03). The changes in refraction 6 months after surgery comparing with 1 month after surgery were 0.12 ± 0.10 D in the Triple-A group and 0.13 ± 0.08 D in the TS group (P=0.56). All (100%) of the patients in the Triple-A group and 50% of the patients in the TS group had a UDVA of 20/16 at 6 months after surgery (P < 0.01). The induced spherical aberrations and total HOAs in the Triple-A group were significantly lower than those in the TS group (0.17 ± 0.02 μm vs 0.23 ± 0.02 μm, P < 0.01; 0.20 ± 0.04 μm vs 0.39 ± 0.03 μm, P < 0.01) at 6 months after surgery. The mean reduced corneal thickness was 113.06 ± 10.5 μm in the Triple-A profile group and 121.43 ± 23.46 μm in the TS group (P=0.02). No patient in either group had haze and high intraocular pressure 6 months after surgery.

Conclusion

For treatment of high-myopia patients, the Triple-A profile was more effective, predictable, and accurate than the Zyoptix tissue-saving profile. Meanwhile, the Triple-A profile had less induced spherical aberrations, total HOAs, and cornea ablation depth than the Zyoptix tissue-saving profile. Patients in the Triple-A group with 500 Hz pulse rate treatment achieved superior results. The two surgical procedures were equivalent in terms of safety and stability.

Effect of age on visual and refractive results after laser-assisted subepithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) with adjuvant use of mitomycin C

PURPOSE

To evaluate the influence of age on visual and refractive results after laser-assisted subepithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) with the adjuvant use of mitomycin C (MMC) for the correction of myopia.

METHODS

Retrospective, nonrandomized, cohort study. A total of 1374 eyes treated with LASEK+MMC were included in the study (we compared 1163 eyes of patients aged 18 to 40 years versus 211 eyes of patients over 40 years). Visual and refractive results were evaluated at the 6-month postoperative visit.

RESULTS

Six months postoperatively, both the uncorrected distance visual acuity and the corrected distance visual acuity were significantly better in the group of young patients (P=0.0001). We found a slight tendency to overcorrection in the group of young patients compared to a slight tendency to undercorrection in the group of patients over 40 years (P=0.002). The efficacy index was significantly better in the group of younger patients (0.91±0.2) than in the older patients (0.86±0.2) (P=0.0001). No significant difference was found in the safety index between groups. 81.5% of eyes in the group of patients aged 18 to 40 years compared to 75.3% of eyes in the group of patients aged >40 years were within±0.5D of emmetropia (P=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A tendency toward undercorrection and less predictability was found with aging after myopic LASEK with MMC for the correction of myopia.

A Critical Overview of the Biological Effects of Mitomycin C Application on the Cornea Following Refractive Surgery

During the last 2 decades, modifying the shape of the cornea by means of laser photoablation has emerged as a successful and popular treatment option for refractive errors. Corneal surface ablation techniques such as photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser-assisted subepithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) offer good refractive results while having a minimal impact on corneal biomechanical stability. Past limitations of these techniques included the long-term regression of refractive outcome and a vigorous healing response that reduced corneal clarity in some patients (giving rise to what is clinically described as “haze”). Mitomycin C (MMC) was introduced as a healing modulator and applied on the corneal surface after refractive surgery to address these drawbacks. This article critically reviews the available evidence on the biological effects, safety, and clinical benefits of the off-label use of MMC in corneal refractive surgery.

Femtosecond laser corneal refractive surgery for the correction of high myopic anisometropic amblyopia in juveniles

AIM

To evaluate the effects of femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) to correct high myopic anisometropic amblyopia in juvenile patients.

METHODS

From November 2013 to January 2015, 33 amblyopic patients with high myopic anisometropic amblyopia were studied. FS-LASIK (30 eyes) or SMILE (3 eyes) was performed in the amblyopic eyes. Visual acuity, refraction, contrast sensitivity, stereoacuity and complications were evaluated. Patients completed follow-up examinations at 3d, 1mo, 3mo and the last follow-up time (mean 8.17±3.23mo) after surgery.

RESULTS

The mean age at surgery was 9.04±3.04y (range 6-16y). The mean spherical equivalent in the amblyopic eyes was significantly decreased from -10.00±2.39 D preoperatively to -0.06±1.06 D at 1mo, -0.19±1.33 D at 3mo and -0.60±1.43 D at approximately 8mo postoperatively (P<0.05 for all). The mean myopic anisometropia was significantly decreased from -9.45±2.33 D preoperatively to +0.37±1.48 D at 1mo, -0.46±1.47 D at 3mo and -0.09±1.83 D at approximately 8mo (P<0.05 for all). The logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) for uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and CDVA, respectively) of the amblyopic eye improved from 1.74±0.35 and 0.98±0.63 preoperatively to 0.45±0.31 and 0.41±0.33 at approximately 8mo after surgery, respectively. The logMAR CDVA at 3d, 1, 3 and 8mo postoperatively improved by means of 1.42, 2.22, 2.96, and 4.39 lines, and a gain of more than two lines accounted for 45%, 50%, 74% and 86% of all patients, respectively. The contrast sensitivity of both amblyopic eyes and dominant eyes at 0.5, 2, 8 cycles per degree was significantly improved postoperatively (P<0.05 for all). Of the 33 pediatric patients, no patients had near stereopsis preoperatively and seven patients (21.2%) recovered near stereopsis (400″ to 60″) at approximately 8mo after surgery. No intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred in any patient.

CONCLUSION

FS-LASIK or SMILE can be promising alternative methods to correct high myopic anisometropic amblyopia in juvenile patients who have failed with traditional approaches.

The quality of systematic reviews about interventions for refractive error can be improved: a review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews should inform American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Pattern® (PPP) guidelines. The quality of systematic reviews related to the forthcoming Preferred Practice Pattern® guideline (PPP) Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery is unknown. We sought to identify reliable systematic reviews to assist the AAO Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery PPP.

METHODS

Systematic reviews were eligible if they evaluated the effectiveness or safety of interventions included in the 2012 PPP Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery. To identify potentially eligible systematic reviews, we searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite database of systematic reviews. Two authors identified eligible reviews and abstracted information about the characteristics and quality of the reviews independently using the Systematic Review Data Repository. We classified systematic reviews as "reliable" when they (1) defined criteria for the selection of studies, (2) conducted comprehensive literature searches for eligible studies, (3) assessed the methodological quality (risk of bias) of the included studies, (4) used appropriate methods for meta-analyses (which we assessed only when meta-analyses were reported), (5) presented conclusions that were supported by the evidence provided in the review.

RESULTS

We identified 124 systematic reviews related to refractive error; 39 met our eligibility criteria, of which we classified 11 to be reliable. Systematic reviews classified as unreliable did not define the criteria for selecting studies (5; 13%), did not assess methodological rigor (10; 26%), did not conduct comprehensive searches (17; 44%), or used inappropriate quantitative methods (3; 8%). The 11 reliable reviews were published between 2002 and 2016. They included 0 to 23 studies (median = 9) and analyzed 0 to 4696 participants (median = 666). Seven reliable reviews (64%) assessed surgical interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Most systematic reviews of interventions for refractive error are low methodological quality. Following widely accepted guidance, such as Cochrane or Institute of Medicine standards for conducting systematic reviews, would contribute to improved patient care and inform future research.

Comparison of ReLEx SMILE and PRK in terms of visual and refractive outcomes for the correction of low myopia

PURPOSE

To compare the objective and subjective quality of vision after femtosecond laser-assisted small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for low myopia.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty eyes from 60 patients (34 females, 26 males) undergoing bilateral correction of low myopia (≤-4 D SE) with either ReLEx SMILE or PRK were included. Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and higher-order aberrations were recorded preoperatively and compared postoperatively. A quality of vision questionnaire was scored and analyzed 3 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

At 3 months, the SMILE group had significantly better uncorrected and corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA), compared to PRK group (p = 0.01). Post-op spherical equivalent (SE) was comparable in both groups (SMILE = -0.15 ± 0.19 D, PRK = -0.14 ± 0.23 D, p = 0.72). However, SE predictability was better in SMILE group with 97% eyes within ±0.05 D compared to 93% eyes in the PRK group. Total higher-order aberrations (HOAs) were significantly higher in PRK compared to the SMILE group (p = 0.022). The SMILE group demonstrated slightly better contrast sensitivity, which was significant at spatial frequency of 12 cpd (p = 0.03). Four eyes in the PRK group had loss of CDVA by one line due to mild haze.

CONCLUSIONS

Both SMILE and PRK were effective procedures for correction of low myopia. However, SMILE offered superior quality of vision and patient satisfaction due to better postoperative comfort and lower induction of aberrations at 3 months.

Active Pedicle Epithelial Flap Transposition Combined with Amniotic Membrane Transplantation for Treatment of Nonhealing Corneal Ulcers

Introduction. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy of active pedicle epithelial flap transposition combined with amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) in treating nonhealing corneal ulcers. Material and Methods. Eleven patients (11 eyes) with nonhealing corneal ulcer who underwent the combined surgery were included. Postoperatively, ulcer healing time was detected by corneal fluorescein staining. Visual acuity, intraocular pressure, surgical complications, and recurrence were recorded. Corneal status was inspected by the laser scanning confocal microscopy and anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT). Results. The primary diseases were herpes simplex keratitis (8 eyes), corneal graft ulcer (2 eyes), and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (1 eye). All epithelial flaps were intact following surgery, without shedding or displacement. Mean ulcer healing time was 10.8 ± 3.1 days, with a healing rate of 91%. Vision significantly improved from 1.70 to 0.82 log MAR (P = 0.001). A significant decrease in inflammatory cell infiltration and corneal stromal edema was revealed 2 months postoperatively by confocal microscopy and AS-OCT. Corneal ulcer recurred in 1 eye. None of the patients developed major complications. Conclusion. Active pedicle epithelial flap transposition combined with AMT is a simple and effective treatment for nonhealing corneal ulcers.

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

BACKGROUND

Myopia (near-sightedness or short-sightedness) is a condition in which the refractive power of the eye is greater than required. The most frequent complaint of people with myopia is blurred distance vision, which can be eliminated by conventional optical aids such as spectacles or contact lenses, or by refractive surgery procedures such as photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK). PRK uses laser to remove the corneal stroma. Similar to PRK, LASEK first creates an epithelial flap and then replaces it after ablating the corneal stroma. The relative benefits and harms of LASEK and PRK, as shown in different trials, warrant a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare LASEK versus PRK for correction of myopia by evaluating their efficacy and safety in terms of postoperative uncorrected visual acuity, residual refractive error, and associated complications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision group Trials Register) (2015 Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to December 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 December 2015. We used the Science Citation Index and searched the reference lists of the included trials to identify relevant trials for this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included in this review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LASEK versus PRK for correction of myopia. Trial participants were 18 years of age or older and had no co-existing ocular or systemic diseases that might affect refractive status or wound healing.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all reports and assessed the risk of bias of trials included in this review. We extracted data and summarized findings using risk ratios and mean differences. We used a random-effects model when we identified at least three trials, and we used a fixed-effect model when we found fewer than three trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs with a total of 428 participants 18 years of age or older with low to moderate myopia. These trials were conducted in the Czech Republic, Brazil, Italy, Iran, China, Korea, Mexico, Turkey, USA, and UK. Investigators of 10 out of 11 trials randomly assigned one eye of each participant to be treated with LASEK and the other with PRK, but did not perform paired-eye (matched) analysis. Because of differences in outcome measures and follow-up times among the included trials, few trials contributed data for many of the outcomes we analyzed for this review. Overall, we judged RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias due to poor reporting; however, because of imprecision, inconsistency, and potential reporting bias, we graded the quality of the evidence from very low to moderate for outcomes assessed in this review.The proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity of 20/20 or better at 12-month follow-up was comparable in LASEK and PRK groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.92 to 1.05). Although the 95% CI suggests little to no difference in effect between groups, we judged the quality of the evidence to be low because only one trial reported this outcome (102 eyes). At 12 months post treatment, data from two trials suggest no difference or a possibly small effect in favor of PRK over LASEK for the proportion of eyes achieving ± 0.50 D of target refraction (RR 0.93, 95% CI 00.84 to 1.03; 152 eyes; low-quality evidence). At 12 months post treatment, one trial reported that one of 51 eyes in the LASEK group lost one line or more best-spectacle corrected visual acuity compared with none of 51 eyes in the PRK group (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 71.96; very low-quality evidence).Three trials reported adverse outcomes at 12 months of follow-up or longer. At 12 months post treatment, three trials reported corneal haze score; however, data were insufficient and were inconsistent among the trials, precluding meta-analysis. One trial reported little or no difference in corneal haze scores between groups; another trial reported that corneal haze scores were lower in the LASEK group than in the PRK group; and one trial did not report analyzable data to estimate a treatment effect. At 24 months post treatment, one trial reported a lower, but clinically unimportant, difference in corneal haze score for LASEK compared with PRK (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.14; 184 eyes; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Uncertainty surrounds differences in efficacy, accuracy, safety, and adverse effects between LASEK and PRK for eyes with low to moderate myopia. Future trials comparing LASEK versus PRK should follow reporting standards and follow correct analysis. Trial investigators should expand enrollment criteria to include participants with high myopia and should evaluate visual acuity, refraction, epithelial healing time, pain scores, and adverse events.