Meta-analysis: clinical outcomes of laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in hyperopia

BackgroundTo evaluate differences in clinical outcome, safety, and efficacy of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) in the correction of hyperopic refractive errors.MethodsWe have adhered to PRISMA criteria in this systematic review, which is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023469543). Our search with studies comparing PRK and LASIK for hyperopia was conducted through the databases PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. We used the Cochrane method to assess bias and evaluated variables like uncorrected distance visual acuity and mean spherical equivalent. Using fixed- or random-effects models, a meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 for evaluating heterogeneity and significance. Sensitivity analysis addressed the causes of heterogeneity to assure stability.ResultsWe included 6 articles (419 participants, 585 eyes) in this review five were retrospective and 1 case-series. The final mean refractive SE (WMD, -0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.31; P = 0.06). patients achieving uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/20 or better (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.78; P = 0.33). final UDVA of 20/40 or better (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.65-3.02; P = 0.81) were analyzed.ConclusionsIn this meta-analysis, LASIK had no significant benefits over PRK in relation to clinical outcomes. Less corneal haze was observed in LASIK-treated eyes at 1 to 3 months after surgery.