2012
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007112.pub3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) versus laser assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for hyperopia correction

Abstract: 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.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
26
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…23,24 There is no definite evidence-based answer to whether LASIK or LASEK is the better treatment for hyperopia. 25 Surface ablations are associated with more postoperative pain, slower visual recovery, and corneal haze. Our visual acuity outcomes are comparable to previously published results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…23,24 There is no definite evidence-based answer to whether LASIK or LASEK is the better treatment for hyperopia. 25 Surface ablations are associated with more postoperative pain, slower visual recovery, and corneal haze. Our visual acuity outcomes are comparable to previously published results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…20) logMAR. The UDVA histogram shows the cumulative percentage of eyes within each visual acuity group (Figure 1).…”
Section: Efficacymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…30 No randomized control trials exist in the literature to this date to compare the 2 procedures for hyperopic corrections.…”
Section: ' Choosing a Procedures Based On Direct Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 99%