IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0103605.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Wavefront-Guided versus Non-Wavefront-Guided Photorefractive Keratectomy for Myopia: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Hidenaga Kobashi
  • Kazutaka Kamiya
  • Keika Hoshi
  • Akihito Igarashi
  • Kimiya Shimizu

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the efficacy, predictability, safety, and induced higher-order aberrations (HOAs) between wavefront-guided and non-wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Methods: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMED, and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trials. Trials meeting the selection criteria were quality appraised, and data was extracted by 2 independent authors. Measures of association were pooled quantitatively using meta-analytical methods. Comparisons between wavefront-guided and non-wavefront-guided ablations were made 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 differences and 95% CIs were used to compare induced HOAs. Results: The study covered five trials involving 298 eyes. After wavefront-guided PRK, the pooled OR of achieving an uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 (efficacy) was 1.18 (95% CI, 0.53–2.60; p = 0.69), the pooled OR of achieving a result within ±0.50 diopter of the intended target (predictability) was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.40–1.84; p = 0.70). No study reported a loss of 2 or more lines of Snellen acuity (safety) with either modality. In eyes with wavefront-guided PRK, the postoperative trefoil aberrations (mean difference −0.02; 95% CI, −0.03 to −0.00; p = 0.03) were significantly lower. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the postoperative total HOAs (mean difference −0.04; 95% CI, −0.23 to 0.14; p = 0.63), spherical (mean difference 0.00; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.09; p = 0.93), and coma (mean difference −0.06; 95% CI, −0.14 to 0.03; p = 0.20) aberrations. Conclusions: According to the meta-analysis, wavefront-guided PRK offered no advantage in efficacy, predictability, or safety measures over non-wavefront-guided PRK, although it may have induced fewer trefoil aberrations.

Suggested Citation

  • Hidenaga Kobashi & Kazutaka Kamiya & Keika Hoshi & Akihito Igarashi & Kimiya Shimizu, 2014. "Wavefront-Guided versus Non-Wavefront-Guided Photorefractive Keratectomy for Myopia: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-6, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0103605
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103605
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103605
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103605&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0103605?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0103605. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.