PMID- 19370672
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20090623
LR  - 20181221
IS  - 1469-493X (Electronic)
IS  - 1361-6137 (Linking)
IP  - 2
DP  - 2009 Apr 15
TI  - Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) versus laser assisted in situ keratomileusis 
      (LASIK) for hyperopia correction.
PG  - CD007112
LID - 10.1002/14651858.CD007112.pub2 [doi]
AB  - BACKGROUND: Hyperopia, or hypermetropia (also known as long-sightedness or 
      far-sightedness), is the condition where the unaccommodating eye brings parallel 
      light to a focus behind the retina instead of on it. Hyperopia can be corrected 
      with both non-surgical and surgical methods, among them photorefractive 
      keratectomy (PRK) and laser assisted In situ keratomileusis (LASIK). There is 
      uncertainty as to whether hyperopic-PRK or hyperopic-LASIK is the better method. 
      OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to determine whether PRK or LASIK 
      leads to more reliable, stable and safe results when correcting a hyperopic 
      refractive error. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of 
      Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1950 to 
      January 2009), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2009) and LILACS (January 1982 to 
      January 2009). There were no language or date restrictions in the search for 
      trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 13 January 2009. We also 
      searched the reference lists of the studies included in the review for 
      information about further trials and used the Science Citation Index to search 
      for papers that cite any studies included in this review. We did not handsearch 
      journals or conference proceedings specifically for this review. SELECTION 
      CRITERIA: We planned to include only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) 
      comparing PRK against LASIK for correction of hyperopia and then perform a 
      sensitivity analysis of pre- and post-millennial trials since this is the 
      mid-point in the history of both PRK and LASIK. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We 
      did not identify any studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review. 
      MAIN RESULTS: As no studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, we 
      discussed the results of non-randomised trials comparing hyperopic-PRK with 
      hyperopic-LASIK. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No robust, reliable conclusions could be 
      reached, but the non-randomised trials reviewed appear to be in agreement that 
      hyperopic-PRK and hyperopic-LASIK are of comparable efficacy. High quality, 
      well-planned open RCTs are needed in order to obtain a robust clinical evidence 
      base.
FAU - Settas, George
AU  - Settas G
AD  - Optimax plc, 128 Finchley Road, London, UK, NW3 5HT. settasg@doctors.org.uk
FAU - Settas, C
AU  - Settas C
FAU - Minos, E
AU  - Minos E
FAU - Yeung, Ian Y L
AU  - Yeung IY
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Review
PT  - Systematic Review
DEP - 20090415
PL  - England
TA  - Cochrane Database Syst Rev
JT  - The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
JID - 100909747
SB  - IM
UIN - Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:CD007112. PMID: 22696365
MH  - Humans
MH  - Hyperopia/*surgery
MH  - *Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ
MH  - *Photorefractive Keratectomy
RF  - 14
EDAT- 2009/04/17 09:00
MHDA- 2009/06/24 09:00
CRDT- 2009/04/17 09:00
PHST- 2009/04/17 09:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2009/04/17 09:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2009/06/24 09:00 [medline]
AID - 10.1002/14651858.CD007112.pub2 [doi]
PST - epublish
SO  - Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15;(2):CD007112. doi: 
      10.1002/14651858.CD007112.pub2.