American journal of ophthalmology · 2022
Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) Versus Laser Assisted Stromal In Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) for Astigmatism Corrections: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Song Jiaxin, Cao Huazheng, Chen Xuan, Zhao Xinheng, Zhang Jiamei, Wu Guoxi, Wang Yan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and laser assisted stromal in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for astigmatism correction.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis METHODS: We reviewed published studies comparing outcomes after LASIK and SMILE for astigmatism correction by querying PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science, with a cut-off date of September 3, 2022. We also compared the changes in visual acuity, refraction, and high-order aberrations between the surgeries. Astigmatism correction outcomes in the low-to-moderate group (less than or equal to -2.00 D) and high group (greater than -2.00 D) were evaluated using vector analysis. The Cochrane risk of bias tool in RevMan software was used for randomized studies (RCT), and Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) was used for the nonrandomized studies (NRSs).
RESULTS: There were 17 studies (5 randomized studies and 12 cohort studies), including 1,985 eyes. A statistically significant difference was found in the correction index (mean difference [MD] = -0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.04 to -0.01, P =0.01), although there was no significant difference in the index of success (MD = 0.01, 95% CI = -0.03 to 0.05, P =0.51), different vector (MD = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.00 to 0.13, P =0.04), and angle of error (MD = 0.56, 95% CI = -0.34 to 1.45, P =0.22) between SMILE and LASIK. However, for low-to-moderate astigmatism correction, SMILE exhibited a smaller correction index (MD = -0.08, 95% CI= -0.13 to -0.02, P =0.008) and a larger difference vector (MD = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.27, P <0.0001) than LASIK. There was no significant difference between the different procedures in visual acuity and refraction (spherical equivalent: MD = -0.04, 95% CI = -0.08 to 0.01, P =0.15) or high-order aberration (MD = -0.01, 95% CI = -0.07 to 0.04, P =0.67), except spherical aberration (MD = -0.12, 95% CI = -0.23 to -0.01, P =0.04). The risk of bias was moderate in most studies because of poor reporting of several bias domains for RCTs, and because of confounding and selective outcome reporting for NRSs.
CONCLUSIONS: When used to treat severe astigmatism, both SMILE and LASIK provide effective and predictable results and generally have equivalent outcomes. However, evidence reveals a tendency toward undercorrection in the SMILE groups for astigmatism correction. In addition, LASIK has a greater probability of causing postoperative spherical aberration.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis METHODS: We reviewed published studies comparing outcomes after LASIK and SMILE for astigmatism correction by querying PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science, with a cut-off date of September 3, 2022. We also compared the changes in visual acuity, refraction, and high-order aberrations between the surgeries. Astigmatism correction outcomes in the low-to-moderate group (less than or equal to -2.00 D) and high group (greater than -2.00 D) were evaluated using vector analysis. The Cochrane risk of bias tool in RevMan software was used for randomized studies (RCT), and Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) was used for the nonrandomized studies (NRSs).
RESULTS: There were 17 studies (5 randomized studies and 12 cohort studies), including 1,985 eyes. A statistically significant difference was found in the correction index (mean difference [MD] = -0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.04 to -0.01, P =0.01), although there was no significant difference in the index of success (MD = 0.01, 95% CI = -0.03 to 0.05, P =0.51), different vector (MD = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.00 to 0.13, P =0.04), and angle of error (MD = 0.56, 95% CI = -0.34 to 1.45, P =0.22) between SMILE and LASIK. However, for low-to-moderate astigmatism correction, SMILE exhibited a smaller correction index (MD = -0.08, 95% CI= -0.13 to -0.02, P =0.008) and a larger difference vector (MD = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.27, P <0.0001) than LASIK. There was no significant difference between the different procedures in visual acuity and refraction (spherical equivalent: MD = -0.04, 95% CI = -0.08 to 0.01, P =0.15) or high-order aberration (MD = -0.01, 95% CI = -0.07 to 0.04, P =0.67), except spherical aberration (MD = -0.12, 95% CI = -0.23 to -0.01, P =0.04). The risk of bias was moderate in most studies because of poor reporting of several bias domains for RCTs, and because of confounding and selective outcome reporting for NRSs.
CONCLUSIONS: When used to treat severe astigmatism, both SMILE and LASIK provide effective and predictable results and generally have equivalent outcomes. However, evidence reveals a tendency toward undercorrection in the SMILE groups for astigmatism correction. In addition, LASIK has a greater probability of causing postoperative spherical aberration.