Article Text

PDF
Clinical science
Ten years after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for moderate to high myopia (control-matched study)
  1. J L Alió1,
  2. D Ortiz1,
  3. O Muftuoglu2,
  4. M J Garcia1
  1. 1
    Instituto Oftalmológico de Alicante, Vissum (Department of Refractive Surgery) and Division of Ophthalmology, Miguel Hernandez University, Medical School, Alicante, Spain
  2. 2
    Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
  1. Correspondence to Professor J L Alió, Instituto Oftalmológico de Alicante Avda De Denia s/n, (EdificioVISSUM) 03016, Alicante, Spain; jlalio{at}vissum.com

Abstract

Objective: To compare the long-term outcomes of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser in situ keratomilesis (LASIK) for myopia between −6 and −10 D.

Methods: A retrospective, control-matched study including 68 eyes, 34 which underwent PRK and 34 LASIK, with myopia between −6 and −10 D, operated using the VISX 20/20 excimer laser, was performed. Optical zones of 5.5 to 6 mm were used. All PRK-treated eyes were matched with LASIK-treated eyes of the same age, spherical equivalent within ±1.25 D, sphere within ±1.5 D and cylinder within ±2.5 D. All patients were evaluated 3 months, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years and 10 years after surgery. The main outcomes measures were refractive predictability and stability, safety, efficacy and re-treatment rate.

Results: At 10 years, 20 (71%) and 23 (88%) were within ±1.00 D after PRK and LASIK respectively. The re-treatment rate was 35% and 18% respectively. No eye lost more than two lines of BSCVA in both groups. The efficacy was 0.90 for PRK and 0.95 for LASIK.

Conclusions: Both PRK and LASIK were safe for moderate myopia. LASIK demonstrated slightly better efficacy, predictability, and less rate of re-treatment after 10 years. The technical improvements should be taken into account when comparing these results with those obtained more recently.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding This study has been supported in part by a grant of the Spanish Ministry of Health, Instituto Carlos III, Red Temática de Investigación en Oftalmología, Subproyecto de Cirugía Refractíva y Calidad Visual (C03/13).

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the institutional review board (Ethical Committee of Clinical Investigation of Instituto Oftalmológico de Alicante).

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • At a glance
    Harminder S Dua Arun D Singh