section name header

Evidence summaries

Photorefractive Keratectomy (Prk) Versus Laser-Assisted in-Situ Keratomileusis (Lasik) for Myopia

Laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) appears to give a faster visual recovery than photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) but the long-term effectiveness of these two procedures seems to be comparable. Level of evidence: "B"

A Cochrane review [Abstract] 1 included 13 studies with a total of 1923 eyes. Nine of these trials randomised eyes to treatment, two trials randomised people to treatment and treated both eyes, and two trials randomised people to treatment and treated one eye. None of the paired trials reported an appropriate paired analysis. The overall quality of evidence was considered to be low for most outcomes because of the risk of bias in the included trials. There was evidence that LASIK gives a faster visual recovery than PRK and is a less painful technique. Results at one year after surgery were comparable: most analyses favoured LASIK but they were not statistically significant.

Comment: The quality of evidence is downgraded inconsistency (heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes).

References

  • Shortt AJ, Allan BD, Evans JR. Laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for myopia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(1):CD005135. [PubMed]

Primary/Secondary Keywords