Efficacy, predictability, and safety of wavefront-guided refractive laser treatment: metaanalysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, predictability, safety, and induced higher-order aberrations (HOAs) between wavefront-guided and non-wavefront-guided ablations.

SETTING

Division of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.

DESIGN

Metaanalysis.

METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMED, and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trails. Trials meeting the selection criteria were quality appraised and data extracted by 2 independent authors. Measures of association were pooled quantitatively using metaanalytical methods. Comparison between wavefront-guided and non-wavefront-guided ablations was measured as pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences. The pooled ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for efficacy, safety, and predictability. The weighted mean difference and 95% CIs were used to compare induced HOAs.

RESULTS

Eight trials involving 955 eyes were included. After wavefront-guided LASIK, the pooled OR of achieving uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/20 (efficacy) was 1.10 (95% CI, 0.66-1.83; P=.72), the pooled OR of achieving a result within ± 0.50 diopter of intended target (predictability) was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.60-1.75; P=.92), and the weighted mean difference in induced HOAs was -0.09 (95% CI, -0.17 to -0.01; P=.04). No study reported loss of 2 or more lines of Snellen acuity (safety) with either modality.

CONCLUSIONS

Metaanalysis showed no clear evidence of a benefit of wavefront-guided over non-wavefront-guided ablations. However, there was a lack of standardized reporting of UDVA better than 20/20, which might mask an advantage in wavefront-guided treatment. With high preexisting HOAs, wavefront-guided has advantages over non-wavefront-guided treatment.