Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 Feb 22;2(2):CD009799.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009799.pub2.

Laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of myopia

Shi-Ming Li  1 , Siyan Zhan, Si-Yuan Li, Xiao-Xia Peng, Jing Hu, Hua Andrew Law, Ning-Li Wang
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of myopia

Shi-Ming Li et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Myopia (near-sightedness or short-sightedness) is a condition in which the refractive power of the eye is greater than required. The most frequent complaint of people with myopia is blurred distance vision, which can be eliminated by conventional optical aids such as spectacles or contact lenses, or by refractive surgery procedures such as photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK). PRK uses laser to remove the corneal stroma. Similar to PRK, LASEK first creates an epithelial flap and then replaces it after ablating the corneal stroma. The relative benefits and harms of LASEK and PRK, as shown in different trials, warrant a systematic review.

Objectives: The objective of this review is to compare LASEK versus PRK for correction of myopia by evaluating their efficacy and safety in terms of postoperative uncorrected visual acuity, residual refractive error, and associated complications.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision group Trials Register) (2015 Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to December 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 December 2015. We used the Science Citation Index and searched the reference lists of the included trials to identify relevant trials for this review.

Selection criteria: We included in this review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LASEK versus PRK for correction of myopia. Trial participants were 18 years of age or older and had no co-existing ocular or systemic diseases that might affect refractive status or wound healing.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened all reports and assessed the risk of bias of trials included in this review. We extracted data and summarized findings using risk ratios and mean differences. We used a random-effects model when we identified at least three trials, and we used a fixed-effect model when we found fewer than three trials.

Main results: We included 11 RCTs with a total of 428 participants 18 years of age or older with low to moderate myopia. These trials were conducted in the Czech Republic, Brazil, Italy, Iran, China, Korea, Mexico, Turkey, USA, and UK. Investigators of 10 out of 11 trials randomly assigned one eye of each participant to be treated with LASEK and the other with PRK, but did not perform paired-eye (matched) analysis. Because of differences in outcome measures and follow-up times among the included trials, few trials contributed data for many of the outcomes we analyzed for this review. Overall, we judged RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias due to poor reporting; however, because of imprecision, inconsistency, and potential reporting bias, we graded the quality of the evidence from very low to moderate for outcomes assessed in this review.The proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity of 20/20 or better at 12-month follow-up was comparable in LASEK and PRK groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.92 to 1.05). Although the 95% CI suggests little to no difference in effect between groups, we judged the quality of the evidence to be low because only one trial reported this outcome (102 eyes). At 12 months post treatment, data from two trials suggest no difference or a possibly small effect in favor of PRK over LASEK for the proportion of eyes achieving ± 0.50 D of target refraction (RR 0.93, 95% CI 00.84 to 1.03; 152 eyes; low-quality evidence). At 12 months post treatment, one trial reported that one of 51 eyes in the LASEK group lost one line or more best-spectacle corrected visual acuity compared with none of 51 eyes in the PRK group (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 71.96; very low-quality evidence).Three trials reported adverse outcomes at 12 months of follow-up or longer. At 12 months post treatment, three trials reported corneal haze score; however, data were insufficient and were inconsistent among the trials, precluding meta-analysis. One trial reported little or no difference in corneal haze scores between groups; another trial reported that corneal haze scores were lower in the LASEK group than in the PRK group; and one trial did not report analyzable data to estimate a treatment effect. At 24 months post treatment, one trial reported a lower, but clinically unimportant, difference in corneal haze score for LASEK compared with PRK (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.14; 184 eyes; low-quality evidence).

Authors' conclusions: Uncertainty surrounds differences in efficacy, accuracy, safety, and adverse effects between LASEK and PRK for eyes with low to moderate myopia. Future trials comparing LASEK versus PRK should follow reporting standards and follow correct analysis. Trial investigators should expand enrollment criteria to include participants with high myopia and should evaluate visual acuity, refraction, epithelial healing time, pain scores, and adverse events.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST The review authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 1 Proportion of eyes within ± 0.50 D of target refraction at 12 months post treatment.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 2 Postoperative mean spherical equivalent (D) at 1 week.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 3 Postoperative mean spherical equivalent (D) at 1 month.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 4 Postoperative mean spherical equivalent (D) at 3 months.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 5 Postoperative mean spherical equivalent (D) at 6 months.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 6 Postoperative mean spherical equivalent (D) at 12 months.
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 7 Proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better at 1 week.
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 8 Proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better at 1 month.
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 9 Proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better at 3 months.
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 10 Proportion of eyes within ± 0.50 D of target refraction at 1 month.
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 11 Proportion of eyes within ± 0.50 D of target refraction at 3 months.
1.12
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 12 Postoperative epithelial healing time (days) at 1 week.
1.13
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 13 Postoperative pain scores at 1 day.
1.14
1.14. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 14 Postoperative pain scores at 2 days.
1.15
1.15. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 15 Postoperative pain scores at 3 days.
1.16
1.16. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 16 Postoperative corneal haze score at 1 month.
1.17
1.17. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 17 Postoperative corneal haze score at 3 months.
1.18
1.18. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 18 Postoperative corneal haze score at 6 months.
1.19
1.19. Analysis
Comparison 1 LASEK versus PRK, Outcome 19 Postoperative corneal haze score at 12 months.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009799

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Autrata 2003 {published data only}
    1. Autrata R, Rehurek J. Laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy for myopia: two‐year follow‐up. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery 2003;29(4):661‐8. - PubMed
Eliacik 2015 {published data only}
    1. Eliaçik M, Bayramlar H, Sevil K, Erdur SK, Karabela Y, Demirci G, et al. Anterior segment optical coherence tomography evaluation of corneal epithelium healing time after 2 different surface ablation methods. Saudi Medical Journal 2015;36(1):67‐72. - PMC - PubMed
Ghanem 2008 {published data only}
    1. Ghanem VC, Kara‐José N, Ghanem RC, Coral SA. Photorefractive keratectomy and butterfly laser epithelial keratomileusis: a prospective, contralateral study. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2008;24(7):671‐84. - PubMed
    1. Ghanem VC, Souza GC, Souza DC, Viese JM, Weber SL, Kara‐José N. PRK and butterfly LASEK: prospective, randomized, contralateral eye comparison of epithelial healing and ocular discomfort. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2008;24(6):591‐9. - PubMed
Ghirlando 2007 {published data only}
    1. Ghirlando A, Gambato C, Midena E. LASEK and photorefractive keratectomy for myopia: clinical and confocal microscopy comparison. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2007;23(7):694‐702. - PubMed
    1. Ghirlando A, Moretto E, Gambato C, Midena E. Laser epithelial keratomileusis vs photorefractive keratectomy: a confocal microscopy study. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 2002;43:ARVO E‐abstract 4243.
Hashemi 2004a {published data only}
    1. Hashemi H, Fotouhi A, Foudazi H, Sadeghi N, Payvar S. Prospective, randomized, paired comparison of laser epithelial keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy for myopia less than ‐6.50 diopters. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2004;20(3):217‐22. - PubMed
He 2004 {published data only}
    1. He TG, Wang LJ, Sun ZY, Shi XR. Comparison of laser subepithelial keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy for the correction of myopia. Chinese Journal of Ophthalmology 2004;40(9):579‐82. - PubMed
Lee 2001 {published data only}
    1. Lee JB, Choe CM, Kim HS, Seo KY, Seong GJ, Kim EK. Comparison of TGF‐beta1 in tears following laser subepithelial keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2002;18(2):130‐4. - PubMed
    1. Lee JB, Seong GJ, Lee JH, Seo KY, Lee YG, Kim EK. Comparison of laser epithelial keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy for low to moderate myopia. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2001;27(4):565‐70. - PubMed
Litwak 2002 {published data only}
    1. Litwak S, Zadok D, Garcia‐de Quevedo V, Robledo N, Chayet AS. Laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy versus photorefractive keratectomy for the correction of myopia. A prospective comparative study. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery 2002;28(8):1330‐3. - PubMed
Pirouzian 2004 {published data only}
    1. Pirouzian A, Thornton J, Ngo S. One‐year outcomes of a bilateral randomized prospective clinical trial comparing laser subepithelial keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2006;22(6):575‐9. - PubMed
    1. Pirouzian A, Thornton JA, Ngo S. A randomized prospective clinical trial comparing laser subepithelial keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy. Archives of Ophthalmology 2004;122(1):11‐6. - PubMed
Rooij 2003 {published data only}
    1. Rooij J, Tilburg CJG, Nouhuys HM, Beekhuis WH. Lasek versus PRK: a randomised study on pain perception, patient satisfaction and outcome. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 2003;ARVO E‐abstract:2664.
Saleh 2003 {published data only}
    1. Saleh TA, Almasri MA. A comparative study of post‐operative pain in laser epithelial keratomileusis versus photorefractive keratectomy. The Surgeon 2003;1(4):229‐32. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

AlMahmoud 2011 {published data only}
    1. AlMahmoud T, Munger R, Jackson WB. Advanced corneal surface ablation efficacy in myopia: changes in higher order aberrations. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology 2011;46(2):175‐81. - PubMed
Astle 2004 {published data only}
    1. Astle WF, Huang PT, Ingram AD, Farran RP. Laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy in children. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery 2004;30(12):2529‐35. - PubMed
Autrata 2004 {published data only}
    1. Autrata R, Rehurek J. Laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy and photorefractive keratectomy versus conventional treatment of myopic anisometropic amblyopia in children. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery 2004;30(1):74‐84. - PubMed
Bower 2007 {published data only}
    1. Bower KS, Coe CD, Stutzman RD, Burka JM, VanRoekel RC, Sediq DA, et al. US Army Surface Ablation Study. Comparison of PRK, MMC‐PRK and LASEK in moderate to high myopia. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 2007;ARVO E‐Abstract:5325.
Burka 2008 {published data only}
    1. Burka JM, Bower KS, Sediq DA, Edwards JD, Stutzman RD, VanRoekel RC, et al. Endothelial cell density following surface ablations for moderate and high myopia. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 2008;ARVO E‐abstract:3355.
Cui 2003 {published data only}
    1. Cui X, Bai J, He X. Comparison of laser epithelial keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy for myopia and astigmatism. Chinese Ophthalmic Research 2003;21(6):631‐3.
Cui 2008 {published data only}
    1. Cui M, Chen XM, Lu P. Comparison of laser epithelial keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy for the correction of myopia: a meta‐analysis. Chinese Medical Journal 2008;121(22):2331‐5. - PubMed
El Danasoury 1999 {published data only}
    1. Danasoury MA, Maghraby A, Klyce SD, Mehrez K. Comparison of photorefractive keratectomy with excimer laser in situ keratomileusis in correcting low myopia (from ‐2.00 to ‐5.50 diopters). A randomized study. Ophthalmology 1999;106(2):411‐20. - PubMed
El‐Maghraby 1999 {published data only}
    1. El‐Maghraby A, Salah T, Waring GO 3rd, Klyce S, Ibrahim O. Randomized bilateral comparison of excimer laser in situ keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy for 2.50 to 8.00 diopters of myopia. Ophthalmology 1999;106(3):447‐57. - PubMed
Gamaly 2007 {published data only}
    1. Gamaly TO, Danasoury A, Maghraby A. A prospective, randomized, contralateral eye comparison of epithelial laser in situ keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy in eyes prone to haze. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2007;23((9 Suppl)):S1015‐20. - PubMed
Ghadhfan 2007 {published data only}
    1. Ghadhfan F, Al‐Rajhi A, Wagoner MD. Laser in situ keratomileusis versus surface ablation: visual outcomes and complications. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery 2007;33(12):2041‐8. - PubMed
Huang 2011 {published data only}
    1. Huang PY, Huang PT, Astle WF, Ingram AD, Hebert A, Huang J, et al. Laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy and photorefractive keratectomy for post‐penetrating keratoplasty myopia and astigmatism in adults. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery 2011;37(2):335‐40. - PubMed
Kang 2012 {published data only}
    1. Kang EC, Choi BJ, Kim EK, Kim TI. Clinical outcomes of optimized prolate ablation and custom aspheric treatment in laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery 2012;38(3):445‐52. - PubMed
Kim 2009 {published data only}
    1. Kim SW, Sun HJ, Chang JH, Kim EK. Anterior segment measurements using Pentacam and Orbscan II 1 to 5 years after refractive surgery. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2009;25(12):1091‐7. - PubMed
Kornilovsky 2001 {published data only}
    1. Kornilovsky IM. Clinical results after subepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (LASEK). Journal of Refractive Surgery 2001;17((2 Suppl)):S222‐3. - PubMed
Leccisotti 2003 {published data only}
    1. Leccisotti A. Laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) without alcohol versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). European Journal of Ophthalmology 2003;13(8):676‐80. - PubMed
Liu 2008 {published data only}
    1. Liu Y, Zhao HW, Li F. Effects of PRK and LASEK on wavefront aberration in human eyes. International Journal of Ophthalmology 2008;8(5):969‐70.
Long 2006 {published data only}
    1. Long Q, Chu R, Zhou X, Dai J, Chen C, Rao SK, et al. Correlation between TGF‐beta1 in tears and corneal haze following LASEK and epi‐LASIK. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2006;22(7):708‐12. - PubMed
Mrukwa 2006 {published data only}
    1. Mrukwa‐Kominek E, Stala P, Gierek‐Ciaciura S, Lange E. Assessment of tears secretion after refractive surgery. Klinika Oczna 2006;108((1‐3)):73‐7. - PubMed
O'Doherty 2007 {published data only}
    1. O'Doherty M, Kirwan C, O'Keeffe M, O'Doherty J. Postoperative pain following epi‐LASIK, LASEK, and PRK for myopia. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2007;23(2):133‐8. - PubMed
O'Keefe 2010 {published data only}
    1. O'Keefe M, Kirwan C. Laser epithelial keratomileusis in 2010 ‐ a review. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2010;38(2):183‐91. - PubMed
Pirouzian 2006 {published data only}
    1. Pirouzian A, Ngo S, Thornton J. LASEK versus PRK. Ophthalmology 2006;113(10):1883. - PubMed
Rapuano 2011 {published data only}
    1. Rapuano CJ. Meta‐analysis: clinical outcomes of laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy and photorefractive keratectomy in myopia. Evidence‐Based Ophthalmology 2011;12(2):72‐3. - PubMed
Reilly 2010 {published data only}
    1. Reilly CD, Panday V, Lazos V, Mittelstaedt BR. PRK vs LASEK vs Epi‐LASIK: a comparison of corneal haze, postoperative pain and visual recovery in moderate to high myopia. Nepalese Journal of Ophthalmology 2012;2(4):97‐104. - PubMed
Reynolds 2010 {published data only}
    1. Reynolds A, Moore JE, Naroo SA, Moore CT, Shah S. Excimer laser surface ablation ‐ a review. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2010;38(2):168‐82. - PubMed
Sekundo 2003 {published data only}
    1. Sekundo W, Tietjen A. Laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LasEk). Review of the current state of knowledge. Ophthalmologe 2003;100(8):603‐10. - PubMed
Sia 2014 {published data only}
    1. Bower KS. A comparison of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), PRK with mitomycin‐C and laser subepithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) in the treatment of moderate and high myopia. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00415077 (accessed 2 February 2016).
    1. Sia RK, Ryan DS, Edwards JD, Stutzman RD, Bower KS. The U.S. army surface ablation study:comparison of PRK, MMC‐PRK, and LASEK in moderate to high myopia. Journal of Refractory Surgery 2014;30(4):256‐64. - PubMed
Spadea 2015 {published data only}
    1. Spadea LF, Verboschi F, Rosa V, Salomone M, Vingolo EM. Long term results of no‐alcohol laser epithelial keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy for myopia. International Journal of Ophthalmology 2015;8(3):574‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Sun 2009 {published data only}
    1. Sun HJ, Park JW, Kim SW. Stability of the posterior corneal surface after laser surface ablation for myopia. Cornea 2009;28(9):1019‐22. - PubMed
Wang 2014 {published data only}
    1. Wang D, Chen G, Tang L, Li Q. Comparison of postoperative pain following laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy and transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy: a prospective, random paired bilateral eye study. Eye Science 2014;29(3):155‐9. - PubMed
Zhao 2010 {published data only}
    1. Zhao LQ, Wei RL, Cheng JW, Li Y, Cai JP, Ma XY. Meta‐analysis: clinical outcomes of laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy and photorefractive keratectomy in myopia. Ophthalmology 2010;117(10):1912‐22. - PubMed

Additional references

Ambrosio 2003
    1. Ambrosio R Jr, Wilson S. LASIK vs LASEK vs PRK: advantages and indications. Seminars in Ophthalmology 2003;18(1):2‐10. - PubMed
Azar 2001
    1. Azar DT, Ang RT, Lee JB, Kato T, Chen CC, Jain S, et al. Laser subepithelial keratomileusis: electron microscopy and visual outcomes of flap photorefractive keratectomy. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 2001;12(4):323‐8. - PubMed
Camelin 1999
    1. Camelin M. LASEK may offer the advantages of both LASIK and PRK. Ocular Surgery News, International Edition March 1999.
Claringbold 2002
    1. Claringbold TV 2nd. Laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy for the correction of myopia. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery 2002;28(1):18‐22. - PubMed
Dastjerdi 2002
    1. Dastjerdi MH, Soong HK. LASEK (laser subepithelial keratomileusis). Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 2002;13(4):261‐3. - PubMed
Foulks 2006
    1. Foulks GN. Prolonging contact lens wear and making contact lens wear safer. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2006;141(2):369‐73. - PubMed
Gartry 1992
    1. Gartry DS, Kerr Muir MG, Marshall J. Excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy. 18‐month follow‐up. Ophthalmology 1992;99(8):1209‐19. - PubMed
Glanville 2006
    1. Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JN, Camosso‐Stefinovic J. How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2006;94(2):130‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Goodman 1989
    1. Goodman GL, Trokel SL, Stark WJ, Munnerlyn CR, Green WR. Corneal healing following laser refractive keratectomy. Archives of Ophthalmology 1989;107(12):1799‐803. - PubMed
Hashemi 2004b
    1. Hashemi H, Fotouhi A, Sadeghi N, Payvar S, Foudazi H. Laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) for myopia in patients with a thin cornea. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2004;20(1):90‐1. - PubMed
He 2009
    1. He M, Zheng Y, Xiang F. Prevalence of myopia in urban and rural children in mainland China. Optometry and Vision Science 2009;86(1):40‐4. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Kempen 2004
    1. Kempen JH, Mitchell P, Lee KE, Tielsch JM, Broman AT, Taylor HR, et al. The prevalence of refractive errors among adults in the United States, Western Europe, and Australia. Archives of Ophthalmology 2004;122(4):495‐505. - PubMed
Kirwan 2009
    1. Kirwan C, O'Keefe M. Comparative study of higher‐order aberrations after conventional laser in situ keratomileusis and laser epithelial keratomileusis for myopia using the Technolas 217z laser platform. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2009;147(1):77‐83. - PubMed
Kuryan 2014
    1. Kuryan J, Cheema A, Chuck RS. Laser‐assisted in‐situ keratomileusis (LASIK) versus laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) for the correction of myopia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011080] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Lam 2004
    1. Lam CS, Goldschmidt E, Edwards MH. Prevalence of myopia in local and international schools in Hong Kong. Optometry and Vision Science 2004;81(5):317‐22. - PubMed
Lee 2005
    1. Lee HK, Lee KS, Kim JK, Kim HC, Seo KR, Kim EK. Epithelial healing and clinical outcomes in excimer laser photorefractive surgery following three epithelial removal techniques: mechanical, alcohol, and excimer laser. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2005;139(1):56‐63. - PubMed
Lin 2004
    1. Lin LL, Shih YF, Hsiao CK, Chen CJ. Prevalence of myopia in Taiwanese schoolchildren: 1983 to 2000. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore 2004;33(1):27‐33. - PubMed
Munnerlyn 1988
    1. Munnerlyn CR, Koons SJ, Marshall J. Photorefractive keratectomy: a technique for laser refractive surgery. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 1988;14(1):46‐52. - PubMed
Pallikaris 1990
    1. Pallikaris IG, Papatzanaki ME, Stathi EZ, Frenschock O, Georgiadis A. Laser in situ keratomileusis. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine 1990;10(5):463‐8. - PubMed
Pallikaris 2001
    1. Pallikaris IG, Kymionis GD, Astyrakakis NI. Corneal ectasia induced by laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2001;27(11):1796‐802. - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Rosman 2010
    1. Rosman M, Alio JL, Ortiz D, Perez‐Santonja JJ. Comparison of LASIK and photorefractive keratectomy for myopia from ‐10.00 to ‐18.00 diopters 10 years after surgery. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2010;26(3):168‐76. - PubMed
Rouweyha 2002
    1. Rouweyha RM, Chuang AZ, Mitra S, Phillips CB, Yee RW. Laser epithelial keratomileusis for myopia with the autonomous laser. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2002;18(3):217‐24. - PubMed
Schünemann 2011
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, et al. Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Seiler 1991
    1. Seiler T, Wollensak J. Myopic photorefractive keratectomy with the excimer laser. One‐year follow‐up. Ophthalmology 1991;98(8):1156‐63. - PubMed
Seiler 1998
    1. Seiler T, Koufala K, Richter G. Iatrogenic keratectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Refractive Surgery 1998;14(3):312‐7. - PubMed
Shortt 2012
    1. Shortt AJ, Allan BDS, Evans JR. Laser‐assisted in‐situ keratomileusis (LASIK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for myopia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005135.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Sugar 2002
    1. Sugar A, Rapuano CJ, Culbertson WW, Huang D, Varley GA, Agapitos PJ, et al. Laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia and astigmatism: safety and efficacy: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2002;109(1):175‐87. - PubMed
Taneri 2004
    1. Taneri S, Zieske JD, Azar DT. Evolution, techniques, clinical outcomes, and pathophysiology of LASEK: review of the literature. Survey of Ophthalmology 2004;49(6):576‐602. - PubMed
Taneri 2011
    1. Taneri S, Weisberg M, Azar DT. Surface ablation techniques. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2011;37(2):392‐408. - PubMed
Virgili 2005
    1. Virgili G, Menchini F. Laser photocoagulation for choroidal neovascularisation in pathologic myopia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004765.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Walline 2011
    1. Walline JJ, Lindsley K, Vedula SS, Cotter SA, Mutti DO, Twelker JD. Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004916.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Wei 2011
    1. Wei ML, Liu JP, Li N, Liu M. Acupuncture for slowing the progression of myopia in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 9. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007842.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Wong 2000
    1. Wong TY, Foster PJ, Hee J, Ng TP, Tielsch JM, Chew SJ, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for refractive errors in an adult Chinese population in Singapore. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2000;41:S324. - PubMed
Yee 2004
    1. Yee RW, Yee SB. Update on laser subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK). Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 2004;15(4):333‐41. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Li 2012
    1. Li SM, Zhan SY, Li SY, Peng XX, Hu J, Wang NL. Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) versus laser‐assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) for myopia correction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009799] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources