rss
Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93:1313-1318 doi:10.1136/bjo.2007.131748
  • Original Article
  • 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
  • Accepted 31 January 2008
  • Published Online First 21 February 2008

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.

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).

Relevant Article

  • At a glance:At a glance Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93:idoi:10.1136/bjo.2009.171173

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF
  4. All versions of this article:
    1. bjo.2007.131748v1
    2. bjo.2007.131748v2
    3. bjo.2007.131748v3
    4. 93/10/1313 most recent

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.