These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Epipolis-laser in situ keratomileusis versus photorefractive keratectomy for the correction of myopia: a meta-analysis.
    Author: Wu W, Wang Y, Xu L.
    Journal: Int Ophthalmol; 2015 Oct; 35(5):757-63. PubMed ID: 26253460.
    Abstract:
    It is unclear whether epipolis-laser in situ keratomileusis (Epi-LASIK) has any significant advantage over photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correcting myopia. We undertook this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies to examine possible differences in efficacy, predictability, and side effects between Epi-LASIK and PRK for correcting myopia. A system literature review was conducted in the PubMed, Cochrane Library EMBASE. The statistical analysis was performed by RevMan 5.0 software. The results included efficacy outcomes (percentage of eyes with 20/20 uncorrected visual acuity post-treatment), predictability (proportion of eyes within ±0.5 D of the target refraction), epithelial healing time, and the incidence of significant haze and pain scores after surgery. There are seven articles with total 987 eyes suitable for the meta-analysis. There is no statistical significance in the predictability between Epi-LASIK and PRK, the risk ratio (RR) is 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.92, 1.16], p = 0.18; with respect to efficacy, the odds ratio is 1.43, 95% CI = [0.85, 2.40], p = 0.56 between Epi-LASIK and PRK, there is no statistical significance either. The epithelial cell layer healing time and the pain scores and the incidence of significant haze showed no significance between these two techniques although more pains can be found in Epi-LASIK than PRK at the early-stage post-operation. According to the above analysis, Epi-LASIK has good efficacy and predictability as PRK. In addition, both techniques have low pain scores and low incidence of significant haze.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]