|
The Cochrane Collaboration
Cochrane Reviews |
| Explore | New + Updated | Other languages |
|
 |
Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) versus laser assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for hyperopia correctionSettas G, Settas C, Minos E, Yeung IYL
Bookmark this:
     more ...
SummaryPhotorefractive keratectomy (PRK) versus laser assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for correction of long-sightednessHyperopia (long-sightedness or far-sightedness) is the condition where the relaxed eye brings parallel light to a focus behind the retina instead of on it. In order to correct hyperopia a variety of surgical techniques can be applied including PRK and LASIK. There exists an uncertainty as to which technique provides more accurate, stable and safe results. As no randomised controlled trials were found that met the inclusion criteria, we could not find definite answers to these questions and therefore concluded that more research is required.
This is a Cochrane review abstract and plain language summary, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration, currently published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010 Issue 1, Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.. The full text of the review is available in The Cochrane Library (ISSN 1464-780X).
This version first published online:
April 15. 2009 AbstractBackgroundHyperopia, or hypermetropia (also known as long-sightedness or far-sightedness), is the condition where the unaccommodating eye brings parallel light to a focus behind the retina instead of on it. Hyperopia can be corrected with both non-surgical and surgical methods, among them photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser assisted In situ keratomileusis (LASIK). There is uncertainty as to whether hyperopic-PRK or hyperopic-LASIK is the better method. ObjectivesThe objectives of this review were to determine whether PRK or LASIK leads to more reliable, stable and safe results when correcting a hyperopic refractive error. Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1950 to January 2009), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2009) and LILACS (January 1982 to January 2009). There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 13 January 2009. We also searched the reference lists of the studies included in the review for information about further trials and used the Science Citation Index to search for papers that cite any studies included in this review. We did not handsearch journals or conference proceedings specifically for this review. Selection criteriaWe planned to include only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PRK against LASIK for correction of hyperopia and then perform a sensitivity analysis of pre- and post-millennial trials since this is the mid-point in the history of both PRK and LASIK. Data collection and analysisWe did not identify any studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review. Main resultsAs no studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, we discussed the results of non-randomised trials comparing hyperopic-PRK with hyperopic-LASIK. Authors' conclusionsNo robust, reliable conclusions could be reached, but the non-randomised trials reviewed appear to be in agreement that hyperopic-PRK and hyperopic-LASIK are of comparable efficacy. High quality, well-planned open RCTs are needed in order to obtain a robust clinical evidence base. |