Cargando…
Clinical outcomes after small-incision lenticule extraction versus femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK for high myopia: A meta-analysis
AIM: To compare postoperative clinical outcomes of high myopia after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK). METHODS: From March 2018 to July 2020, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and several Chinese databases...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7870077/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33556075 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242059 |
Sumario: | AIM: To compare postoperative clinical outcomes of high myopia after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK). METHODS: From March 2018 to July 2020, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and several Chinese databases were comprehensively searched. The studies meeting the criteria were selected and included; the data were extracted by 2 independent authors. The clinical outcome parameters were analyzed with RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included twelve studies involving 766 patients (1400 eyes: 748 receiving SMILE and 652 receiving FS-LASIK). Pooled results revealed no significant differences in the following outcomes: the logarithm of the mean angle of resolution (logMAR) of postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.02 to 0.00, I(2) = 0%, P = 0.07 at 1 mo; WMD = -0.00, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.01, I(2) = 0%, P = 0.83 at 3 mo; WMD = -0.00, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.00, I(2) = 32%, P = 0.33 in the long term), and the postoperative mean refractive spherical equivalent (WMD = -0.03, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.03, I(2) = 13%, P = 0.30). However, the SMILE group had significantly better postoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) than the FS-LASIK group (WMD = -0.04, 95% CI, -0.05 to -0.02, I(2) = 0%, P<0.00001). In the long term, postoperative total higher-order aberration (WMD = -0.09, 95% CI: -0.10 to -0.07, I(2) = 7%, P<0.00001) and postoperative spherical aberration (WMD = -0.15, 95% CI: -0.19 to -0.11, I(2) = 29%, P<0.00001) were lower in the SMILE group than in the FS-LASIK group; a significant difference was also found in postoperative coma (WMD = -0.05, 95% CI: -0.06 to -0.03, I(2) = 30%, P<0.00001). CONCLUSION: For patients with high myopia, both SMILE and FS-LASIK are safe, efficacious and predictable. However, the SMILE group demonstrated advantages over the FS-LASIK group in terms of postoperative CDVA, while SMILE induced less aberration than FS-LASIK. It remains to be seen whether SMILE can provide better visual quality than FS-LASIK; further comparative studies focused on high myopia are necessary. |
---|