Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995) · 2022
Comparison of Visual Outcomes and Optical Quality of Femtosecond Laser-Assisted SMILE and Visian Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL V4c) Implantation for Moderate to High Myopia: A Meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Chen Di, Zhao Xinyu, Chou Yuyu, Luo Yan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare visual outcomes and optical quality of femtosecond laser-assisted small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and Visian Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL V4c; STAAR Surgical) implantation for moderate to high myopia.
METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, the Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, and Chinese databases (Wan-fang data and CNKI) were comprehensively searched to identify studies comparing SMILE and ICL V4c implantation. Data of interest were extracted and analyzed by Stata V.16.0 software (StataCorp). The weighted mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals were used to assess the strength of the association.
RESULTS: Twelve studies incorporating 1,390 eyes of 822 patients were included. The analysis revealed ICL V4c implantation had a significantly higher safety index and lower high order aberrations, coma, and spherical aberration than SMILE in treating moderate to high myopia (P < .05). Subgroup analysis revealed such differences were more prominent in patients with high myopia who had shorter follow-up duration. When follow-up was longer than 6 months, the differences in safety index and total HOAs became nonsignificant (P > .05). The two procedures had no difference in efficacy index, postoperative visual acuity, spherical equivalent, trefoil, Objective Scatter Index, or modulation transfer function cut-off frequency (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Both SMILE and ICL V4c implantation were safe and efficient for moderate to high myopia. Compared with SMILE, ICL V4c implantation might provide better postoperative visual quality in patients with high myopia in the early postoperative period. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(6):332-338.].
METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, the Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, and Chinese databases (Wan-fang data and CNKI) were comprehensively searched to identify studies comparing SMILE and ICL V4c implantation. Data of interest were extracted and analyzed by Stata V.16.0 software (StataCorp). The weighted mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals were used to assess the strength of the association.
RESULTS: Twelve studies incorporating 1,390 eyes of 822 patients were included. The analysis revealed ICL V4c implantation had a significantly higher safety index and lower high order aberrations, coma, and spherical aberration than SMILE in treating moderate to high myopia (P < .05). Subgroup analysis revealed such differences were more prominent in patients with high myopia who had shorter follow-up duration. When follow-up was longer than 6 months, the differences in safety index and total HOAs became nonsignificant (P > .05). The two procedures had no difference in efficacy index, postoperative visual acuity, spherical equivalent, trefoil, Objective Scatter Index, or modulation transfer function cut-off frequency (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Both SMILE and ICL V4c implantation were safe and efficient for moderate to high myopia. Compared with SMILE, ICL V4c implantation might provide better postoperative visual quality in patients with high myopia in the early postoperative period. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(6):332-338.].