Laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy versus epipolis laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia: a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes

Corneal Surface Ablation Laser Refractive Surgery for the Correction of Myopia: A Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To systematically compare the efficacy, predictability, safety, postoperative haze, pain scores, and epithelial healing time of four corneal surface ablation procedures.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the U.S. trial registry were searched up to June 2018. Randomized controlled trials were selected. Efficacy (uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better), predictability (refractive spherical equivalent within ±0.50 diopters [D] of the target), and safety (loss of two or more lines of spectacle corrected distance visual acuity) were set as primary outcome measures. Haze, pain scores, and epithelial healing time were set as secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies involving 1,423 eyes were included. According to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, the quality of outcomes were moderate to high (70.6%). There were no differences in efficacy, predictability, safety, haze, day 1 pain, and epithelial healing time between treatments. Epithelial laser in situ keratomileusis (epi-LASIK) had statistically significantly higher pain scores on day 3 compared to photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) (weighted mean differences [WMD] = 2.2, 95% credible intervals [CrI] = 0.19 to 4.01) and transepithelial PRK (T-PRK) (WMD = 2.7, 95% CrI = 0.51 to 4.84). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve ranking results (best to worst) showed laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) ranked highest for efficacy, predictability, safety, and day 1 pain scores. Epi-LASIK ranked best for grade 1 haze scores. T-PRK ranked best for haze of 0.5 or higher, haze scores day 3 pain scores, and epithelial healing time.

CONCLUSIONS

Surface laser refractive surgeries are comparable in terms of efficacy, predictability, safety, and postoperative haze except for day 3 pain scores, with epi-LASIK being more painful compared to PRK and T-PRK. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(11):726-735.].

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.

Predictability and stability of laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy with mitomycin C for the correction of high myopia

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the predictability and stability of laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) with mitomycin C (MMC) in correction of high myopia (≤-6.0 diopters [D]) as compared to low-to-moderate myopia (>-6.0 D).This is a retrospective, comparative, cohort study which included 43 eyes of 43 consecutive patients who underwent LASEK with MMC in a private hospital in Hong Kong by a single surgeon. Twenty-five eyes had high myopia (mean spherical equivalent [SE] = -8.53 ± 1.82 D) and 18 eyes had low-to-moderate myopia (mean SE = -3.99 ± 1.37 D) before surgery.In terms of refractive predictability, mean SE was significantly better in eyes with preoperative low-to-moderate myopia than high myopia at 6 months (0.04 ± 0.23 vs 0.31 ± 0.52 D, P = .035). In terms of refractive stability, between 1 and 3 months, both groups had mean absolute change of SE of around 0.25 D. Between 3 and 6 months, preoperative low-to-moderate myopia group had significantly less absolute change of SE compared to high myopia group (0.07 vs 0.23 D, P = .003). More eyes with preoperative high myopia changed SE by more than 0.25 D than those with low-to-moderate myopia between 3 and 6 months (32.0% vs 5.6%, P = .057).In conclusion, LASEK with MMC is more unpredictable and unstable in correction of high myopia than low-to-moderate myopia. The refractive outcome of most low-to-moderate myopia correction stabilizes at 3 months. Stability is not achieved until after 6 months in high myopia correction.

Dry Eye after Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) versus Femtosecond Laser-Assisted in Situ Keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for Myopia: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose

To compare dry eye after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK (FS-LASIK) for correcting myopia.

Methods

CENTRAL, Embase and PubMed were searched in November 2016. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohorts that compared dry eye after SMILE with FS-LASIK were selected.

Results

Five cohorts and one RCT were identified for comparing dry eye after SMILE (291 eyes) and FS-LASIK (277 eyes). The pooled results revealed that the SMILE and FS-LASIK groups did not differ significantly in terms of Schirmer’s I test (SIT) and tear film osmolarity (TFO) at any postoperative visits. By contrast, tear break up time (TBUT; p = 0.04 for one month, p < 0.001 for three months, and p = 0.02 for six months) and ocular surface disease index (OSDI; p < 0.001 for one month and three months, and p = 0.006 for six months) were significantly worse in the FS-LASIK group than in the SMILE group at follow-up. At six months postoperatively, TBUT and TFO values in both the SMILE and FS-LASIK groups and OSDI scores in the SMILE group returned to preoperative levels, but SIT values in both groups (p = 0.02 for the SMILE group and p < 0.001 for the FS-LASIK group) and OSDI in the FS-LASIK group (p < 0.001) were still statistically impaired.

Conclusion

Dry eye after both SMILE and FS-LASIK usually occurs transiently. SMILE does not show obvious superiority over FS-LASIK by exhibiting similar and acceptable objective parameters, and SMILE may have milder subjective symptoms.