Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Dec 18;12(12):CD012687.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012687.pub2.

Wavefront excimer laser refractive surgery for adults with refractive errors

Shi-Ming Li  1 , Meng-Tian Kang  1 , Ning-Li Wang  1 , Samuel A Abariga  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Wavefront excimer laser refractive surgery for adults with refractive errors

Shi-Ming Li et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Refractive errors (conditions in which the eye fails to focus objects accurately on the retina due to defects in the refractive system), are the most common cause of visual impairment. Myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism are low-order aberrations, usually corrected with spectacles, contact lenses, or conventional refractive surgery. Higher-order aberrations (HOAs) can be quantified with wavefront aberration instruments and corrected using wavefront-guided or wavefront-optimized laser surgery. Wavefront-guided ablations are based on preoperative measurements of HOAs; wavefront-optimized ablations are designed to minimize induction of new HOAs while preserving naturally occurring aberrations. Two wavefront procedures are expected to produce better visual acuity than conventional procedures.

Objectives: The primary objective was to compare effectiveness and safety of wavefront procedures, laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) or laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) versus corresponding conventional procedures, for correcting refractive errors in adults for postoperative uncorrected visual acuity, residual refractive errors, and residual HOAs. The secondary objective was to compare two wavefront procedures.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2019, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS); the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 6 August 2019. We imposed no restrictions by language or year of publication. We used the Science Citation Index (September 2013) and searched the reference lists of included trials to identify additional relevant trials.

Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing either wavefront modified with conventional refractive surgery or wavefront-optimized with wavefront-guided refractive surgery in participants aged ⪰ 18 years with refractive errors.

Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methodology.

Main results: We identified 33 RCTs conducted in Asia, Europe and United States, totaling 1499 participants (2797 eyes). Participants had refractive errors ranging from high myopia to low hyperopia. Studies reported at least one of the following review-specific outcomes based on proportions of eyes: with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better, without loss of one or more lines of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), within ± 0.50 diopters (D) of target refraction, with HOAs and adverse events. Study characteristics and risk of bias Participants were mostly women, mean age 29 and 53 years, and without previous refractive surgery, ocular pathology or systemic comorbidity. We could not judge risks of bias for most domains of most studies. Most studies in which both eyes of a participant were analyzed failed to account for correlations between two eyes in the analysis and reporting of outcomes. Findings For the primary comparison between wavefront (PRK or LASIK or LASEK) and corresponding conventional procedures, 12-month outcome data were available from only one study of PRK with 70 participants. No evidence of more favorable outcomes of wavefront PRK on proportion of eyes: with UCVA of 20/20 or better (risk ratio [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.24); without loss of one or more lines of BSCVA (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09); within ± 0.5 D of target refraction (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.24); and mean spherical equivalent (mean difference [MD] 0.04, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.18). The evidence for each effect estimate was of low certainty. No study reported HOAs at 12 months. At six months, the findings of two to eight studies showed that overall effect estimates and estimates by subgroup of PRK or LASIK or LASEK were consistent with those for PRK at 12 month, and suggest no difference in all outcomes. The certainty of evidence for each outcome was low. For the comparison between wavefront-optimized and wavefront-guided procedures at 12 months, the overall effect estimates for proportion of eyes: with UCVA of 20/20 or better (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.02; 5 studies, 618 participants); without loss of one or more lines of BSCVA (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.02; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 622 participants); within ± 0.5 diopters of target refraction (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09; I2 = 33%; 4 studies, 480 participants) and mean HOAs (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.07; I2 = 41%; 5 studies, 622 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between the two groups. Owing to substantial heterogeneity, we did not calculate an overall effect estimate for mean spherical equivalent at 12 months, but point estimates consistently suggested no difference between wavefront-optimized PRK versus wavefront-guided PRK. However, wavefront-optimized LASIK compared with wavefront-guided LASIK may improve mean spherical equivalent (MD -0.14 D, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.09; 4 studies, 472 participants). All effect estimates were of low certainty of evidence. At six months, the results were consistent with those at 12 months based on two to six studies. The findings suggest no difference between two wavefront procedures for any of the outcomes assessed, except for the subgroup of wavefront-optimized LASIK which showed probable improvement in mean spherical equivalent (MD -0.12 D, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.05; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 280 participants; low certainty of evidence) relative to wavefront-guided LASIK. We found a single study comparing wavefront-guided LASIK versus wavefront-guided PRK at six and 12 months. At both time points, effect estimates consistently supported no difference between two procedures. The certain of evidence was very low for all estimates. Adverse events Significant visual loss or optical side effects that were reported were similar between groups.

Authors' conclusions: This review suggests that at 12 months and six months postoperatively, there was no important difference between wavefront versus conventional refractive surgery or between wavefront-optimized versus wavefront-guided surgery in the clinical outcomes analyzed. The low certainty of the cumulative evidence reported to date suggests that further randomized comparisons of these surgical approaches would provide more precise estimates of effects but are unlikely to modify our conclusions. Future trials may elect to focus on participant-reported outcomes such as satisfaction with vision before and after surgery and effects of remaining visual aberrations, in addition to contrast sensitivity and clinical outcomes analyzed in this review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Financial interests:

Li SM: none known. Kang MT: none known. Wang NL: none known. Abariga SA: none known.

Intellectual and other interests: none

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3
3
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Wavefront vs Conventional procedure, outcome: 1.1 Proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better post‐treatment: 6 months.
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Wavefront vs Conventional procedure, outcome: 1.5 Proportion of eyes within ± 0.50 diopters (D) of target refraction: 6 months.
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Wavefront vs Conventional procedure, outcome: 1.7 Mean refractive error expressed as mean spherical equivalent post‐treatment: 6 months.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: Wavefront vs Conventional procedure, Outcome 1: Proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better post‐treatment: 6 months
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1: Wavefront vs Conventional procedure, Outcome 2: Proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better post‐treatment:12 months
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1: Wavefront vs Conventional procedure, Outcome 3: Proportion of eyes that had lost 1 or more lines of best spectacle‐corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) posttreatment: 6 months
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1: Wavefront vs Conventional procedure, Outcome 4: Proportion of eyes without loss of 1 or more lines of best spectacle‐corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) posttreatment:12 months
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1: Wavefront vs Conventional procedure, Outcome 5: Proportion of eyes within ± 0.50 diopters (D) of target refraction: 6 months
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1: Wavefront vs Conventional procedure, Outcome 6: Proportion of eyes within ± 0.50 diopters (D) of target refraction: 12 months
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1: Wavefront vs Conventional procedure, Outcome 7: Mean refractive error expressed as mean spherical equivalent post‐treatment: 6 months
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1: Wavefront vs Conventional procedure, Outcome 8: Mean refractive error expressed as mean spherical equivalent post‐treatment:12 months
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1: Wavefront vs Conventional procedure, Outcome 9: Mean higher‐order aberrations (HOAs) microns post‐treatment, measured by machine with wavefront sensor: 1 month
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1: Wavefront vs Conventional procedure, Outcome 10: Mean higher‐order aberrations (HOAs) microns post‐treatment, measured by machine with wavefront sensor: 3 months
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1: Wavefront vs Conventional procedure, Outcome 11: Mean higher‐order aberrations (HOAs) microns post‐treatment, measured by machine with wavefront sensor: 6 months
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2: Wavefront‐optimized vs Wavefront‐guided, Outcome 1: Proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better post‐treatment: 6 months
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2: Wavefront‐optimized vs Wavefront‐guided, Outcome 2: Proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better post‐treatment:12 months
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2: Wavefront‐optimized vs Wavefront‐guided, Outcome 3: Proportion of eyes without loss of 1 or more lines of best spectacle‐corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) posttreatment: 6 months
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2: Wavefront‐optimized vs Wavefront‐guided, Outcome 4: Proportion of eyes without loss of 1 or more lines of best spectacle‐corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) posttreatment:12 months.
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2: Wavefront‐optimized vs Wavefront‐guided, Outcome 5: Proportion of eyes within ± 0.50 diopters (D) of target refraction post‐treatment: 6 months
2.6
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2: Wavefront‐optimized vs Wavefront‐guided, Outcome 6: Proportion of eyes within ± 0.50 diopters (D) of target refraction post‐treatment:12 months
2.7
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2: Wavefront‐optimized vs Wavefront‐guided, Outcome 7: Mean refractive error expressed as mean spherical equivalent post‐treatment: 6 months.
2.8
2.8. Analysis
Comparison 2: Wavefront‐optimized vs Wavefront‐guided, Outcome 8: Mean refractive error expressed as mean spherical equivalent post‐treatment:12 months
2.9
2.9. Analysis
Comparison 2: Wavefront‐optimized vs Wavefront‐guided, Outcome 9: Mean higher‐order aberrations (HOAs) microns post‐treatment, measured by machine with wavefront sensor: 1 month
2.10
2.10. Analysis
Comparison 2: Wavefront‐optimized vs Wavefront‐guided, Outcome 10: Mean higher‐order aberrations (HOAs) microns post‐treatment, measured by machine with wavefront sensor: 3 months
2.11
2.11. Analysis
Comparison 2: Wavefront‐optimized vs Wavefront‐guided, Outcome 11: Mean higher‐order aberrations (HOAs) microns post‐treatment, measured by machine with wavefront sensor: 6 months
2.12
2.12. Analysis
Comparison 2: Wavefront‐optimized vs Wavefront‐guided, Outcome 12: Mean higher‐order aberrations (HOAs) microns post‐treatment, measured by machine with wavefront sensor: 12 months
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3: Wavefront‐guided LASIK vs Wavefront‐guided PRK, Outcome 1: Proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better post‐treatment.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3: Wavefront‐guided LASIK vs Wavefront‐guided PRK, Outcome 2: Proportion of eyes without loss of 1 or more lines of best spectacle‐corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) posttreatment.
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3: Wavefront‐guided LASIK vs Wavefront‐guided PRK, Outcome 3: Proportion of eyes within ± 0.50 diopters (D) of target refraction post‐treatment.
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3: Wavefront‐guided LASIK vs Wavefront‐guided PRK, Outcome 4: Mean refractive error expressed as mean spherical equivalent post‐treatment.
3.5
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3: Wavefront‐guided LASIK vs Wavefront‐guided PRK, Outcome 5: Mean higher‐order aberrations (HOAs) microns post‐treatment, measured by machine with wavefront sensor
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Anderson 2004 {published data only}
    1. Anderson DF, Chisholm CM, Khan A, Kvansakul J, Barbur JL, Gartry DS. Prospective, randomised, double-masked pilot study of conventional versus wavefront-guided LASIK: visual and refractive outcomes. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2004;45(13):ARVO E-abstract 1101.
Bower 2015 {published data only}
    1. Rivers B, Ryan DS, Sia RK, Peppers L, Logan LA, Eaddy JB, et al. Visual performance after wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2014;55(13):ARVO E-abstract 1525.
    1. Ryan DS, Sia RK, Deaver DM, Maurer T, Howell CL, Logan LA, et al. Visual outcomes and the identification of static and dynamic targets of military interest after wavefront-guided (WFG) and wavefront-optimized (WFO) photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK). Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2014;55(13):ARVO E-abstract 1522.
    1. Ryan DS, Sia RK, Peppers L, Eaddy JB, Stutzman RD, Pasternak J, et al, . Visual performance of U.S military service members (USM) in identification of infrared targets after wavefront-guided (WFG) and wavefront-optimized (WFO) photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and LASIK. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2016;57(12):ARVO E-abstract 4861.
    1. Ryan DS, Sia RK, Stutzman RD, Pasternak JF, Howard RS, Howell CL. Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy: visual and military task performance. Military Medicine 2017;182(1):e1636-e44. [DOI: ] - PubMed
    1. Sia RK, Peppers L, Ryan DS, Stutzman R, Pasternak JF, Eaddy JB, et al. Corneal aberrations and its effect on contrast sensitivity after wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized refractive surgeries. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2015;56(7):ARVO E-abstract 3915.
Bower 2018 {published data only}
    1. Ryan DS, Sia RK, Rabin J, Rivers BA, Stutzman RD, Pasternak JF, et al. Contrast sensitivity after wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized PRK and LASIK for myopia and myopic astigmatism. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2018;34(9):590-6. [DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20180716-01] - DOI - PubMed
Brint 2005 {published data only}
    1. Brint SF. Higher order aberrations after LASIK for myopia with alcon and wavelight lasers: a prospective randomized trial. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2005;21(6):S799-803. - PubMed
Chen 2010 {published data only}
    1. Chen GM, Wang SY, Liu S, Ma N, Sun XJ, Pan J. Clinical experience on LASEK operation treated with wavefront guided techniques. International Journal of Ophthalmology 2010;10(11):2124-5. [DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5123.2010.11.026] - DOI
D'Arcy 2012 {published data only}
    1. D'Arcy F, Kirwan C, Qasem Q, O'Keefe M. Prospective contralateral eye study to compare conventional and wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis. Acta Ophthalmologica 2012;90(1):76-80. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2009.01845.x] - DOI - PubMed
Durrie 2004 {published data only}
    1. Durrie DS, Stahl J. Randomized comparison of custom laser in situ keratomileusis with the Alcon CustomCornea and the Bausch & Lomb Zyoptix systems: one-month results. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2004;20(5):S614-8. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Durrie 2010 {published data only}
    1. Durrie DS, Smith RT, Waring GO, Stahl JE, Schwendeman FJ. Comparing conventional and wavefront-optimized LASIK for the treatment of hyperopia. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2010;26(5):356-63. [DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20090617-07] - DOI - PubMed
Karimian 2010 {published data only}
    1. Karimian F, Feizi S, Jafarinasab MR. Conventional versus custom ablation in photorefractive keratectomy: randomized clinical trial. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2010;36(4):637-43. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.10.050] - DOI - PubMed
Kim 2004 {published data only}
    1. Kim TI, Yang SJ, Tchah H. Bilateral comparison of wavefront-guided versus conventional laser in situ keratomileusis with Bausch and Lomb Zyoptix. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2004;20(5):432-8. - PubMed
Lee 2005 {published data only}
    1. Lee DH, Jae RO, Reinstein DZ. Conservation of corneal tissue with wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2005;31(6):1153-8. [DOI: ] - PubMed
Lee 2006 {published data only}
    1. Lee HK, Choe CM, Ma KT, Kim EK. Measurement of contrast sensitivity and glare under mesopic and photopic conditions following wavefront-guided and conventional LASIK surgery. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2006;22(7):647-55. - PubMed
Lee 2018 {published data only}
    1. Lee WS, Manche EE. Comparison of simulated keratometric changes following wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized myopic laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis. Clinical Ophthalmology 2018;12:613-9. [DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S161387] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Manche 2011 {published data only}
    1. Manche EE, Haw WW. Wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis (Lasik) versus wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy (Prk): a prospective randomized eye-to-eye comparison (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis). Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society 2011;109:201-20. - PMC - PubMed
Manche 2013 {published data only}
    1. He L, Liu A, Manche EE. Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis for patients with myopia: a prospective randomized contralateral eye study. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2014;157(6):1170-8.e1. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.02.037] - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kung JS, Manche EE. Erratum for "Quality of Vision After Wavefront-Guided or Wavefront-Optimized LASIK: A Prospective Randomized Contralateral Eye Study". Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995) 2016;32(12):864. [PMID: ] - PubMed
    1. Kung JS, Manche EE. Quality of vision after wavefront-guided or wavefront-optimized LASIK: a prospective randomized contralateral eye study. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2016;32(4):230-6. [DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20151230-01] - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sales CS, Manche EE. One-year outcomes from a prospective, randomized, eye-to-eye comparison of wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized LASIK in myopes. Ophthalmology 2013;120(12):2396-402. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.05.010] - DOI - PubMed
    1. Toy BC, Yu C, Manche EE. Vector analysis of 1-year astigmatic outcomes from a prospective, randomized, fellow eye comparison of wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized LASIK in myopes. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2015;31(5):322-7. [DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20150424-08] - DOI - PubMed
Manche 2014 {published data only}
    1. Sales CS, Manche EE. One-year eye-to-eye comparison of wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis in hyperopes. Clinical Ophthalmology 2014;8:2229-38. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Manche 2015 {published data only}
    1. He L, Manche EE. Contralateral eye-to-eye comparison of wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmology 2015;133(1):51-9. [DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.3876] - DOI - PubMed
    1. He L, Manche EE. Prospective randomized contralateral eye evaluation of subjective quality of vision after wavefront-guided or wavefront- optimized photorefractive keratectomy. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2014;30(1):6-12. - PubMed
    1. Smith R, Manche EE. Quality of vision after wavefront-guided or wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy: a prospective randomized contralateral eye study. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2018;59(9):ARVO E-abstract 5977.
    1. Smith R, Manche EE. Three-month outcomes from a prospective, randomized, contralateral, eye-to-eye comparison of wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized PRK in myopes. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2017;58(8):ARVO E-abstract 5283.
    1. Toy BC, Manche EE. Vector analysis of 1-year astigmatic outcomes from a randomized fellow eye comparison of photorefractive keratectomy using 2 excimer laser platforms. Eye and Contact Lens 2018;44(Suppl 1):S71-6. [DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000332] - DOI - PubMed
Mastropasqua 2006 {published data only}
    1. Mastropasqua L, Toto L, Zuppardi E, Nubile M, Carpineto P, Nicola M, et al. Zyoptix wavefront-guided versus standard photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in low and moderate myopia: randomized controlled 6-month study. European Journal of Ophthalmology 2006;16(2):219-28. - PubMed
Merchea 2004 {published data only}
    1. Merchea MM, Matthaeus A, Cox IG. Visual performance improvement in Zyoptix wavefront guided LASIK. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2004;45(13):ARVO E-abstract 204.
Mifflin 2012 {published data only}
    1. Mifflin MD, Hatch BB, Sikder S, Bell J, Kurz CJ, Moshirfar M. Custom vs conventional PRK: a prospective, randomized, contralateral eye comparison of postoperative visual function. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2012;28(2):127-32. [DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20120103-01] - DOI - PubMed
Miraftab 2011 {published data only}
    1. Miraftab M, Seyedian MA, Hashemi H. Wavefront-guided vs wavefront-optimized LASIK: a randomized clinical trial comparing contralateral eyes. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2011;27(4):245-50. [DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20100812-02] - DOI - PubMed
Moshirfar 2011a {published data only}
    1. Moshirfar M, Churgin DS, Betts BS, Hsu M, Sikder S, Neuffer M, et al. Prospective, randomized, fellow eye comparison of WaveLight Allegretto Wave Eye-Q versus VISX CustomVueTM STAR S4 IRTM in photorefractive keratectomy: analysis of visual outcomes and higher-order aberrations. Clinical Ophthalmology 2011;5:1185-93. [DOI: ] - PMC - PubMed
Moshirfar 2011b {published data only}
    1. Moshirfar M, Betts BS, Churgin DS, Hsu M, Neuffer M, Sikder S, et al. A prospective, randomized, fellow eye comparison of Wavelight Allegretto wave eye-Q versus VISX CustomVue STAR S4 IR; in laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK): analysis of visual outcomes and higher order aberrations. Clinical Ophthalmology 2011;5:1339-47. - PMC - PubMed
Nassiri 2011 {published data only}
    1. Nassiri N, Safi S, Aghazade AM, Sheibani K, Safi H, Panahi N, et al. Visual outcome and contrast sensitivity after photorefractive keratectomy in low to moderate myopia: wavefront-optimized versus conventional methods. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2011;37(10):1858-64. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.05.023] - DOI - PubMed
Nuijts 2002 {published data only}
    1. Nuijts RM, Nabar VA, Hament WJ, Eggink FA. Wavefront-guided versus standard laser in situ keratomileusis to correct low to moderate myopia. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2002;28(11):1907-13. - PubMed
Phusitphoykai 2003 {published data only}
    1. Phusitphoykai N, Tungsiripat T, Siriboonkoom J, Vongthongsri A. Comparison of conventional versus wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis in the same patient. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2003;19(Suppl 2):S217-20. - PubMed
Qiu 2007 {published data only}
    1. Qiu P, Wang Z, Yang B, Huang GF, Xiao BY, Gu JJ, et al. The analysis of subjective evaluation and contrast sensitivity function after wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis and traditional laser in situ keratomileusis. Chinese Journal of Ophthalmology 2007;43(4):329-35. - PubMed
Roe 2019 {published data only}
    1. Roe JR, Manche EE. Prospective, randomized, contralateral eye comparison of wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2019;207:175-83. [DOI: ] - PubMed
Smith 2004 {published data only}
    1. Smith GT, Smith LF, Stevens JD. Randomised prospective double masked study of wavefront-guided LASIK treatment to one eye and non-wavefront guided treatment to the contralateral eye. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2004;45(13):ARVO E-abstract 2822.
Vongthongsri 2002 {published data only}
    1. Vongthongsri A, Phusitphoykai N, Naripthapan P. Comparison of wavefront-guided customized ablation vs. conventional ablation in laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2002;18(Suppl 3):S332-5. - PubMed
Yu 2007 {published data only}
    1. Yu J, Wang F. Contrast sensitivity change after wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis. Chinese ophthalmic research 2007;25(2):138-141.
Yu 2008a {published data only}
    1. Yu J, Chen H, Wang F. Patient satisfaction and visual symptoms after wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized LASIK with the WaveLight platform. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2008;24(5):477-86. [DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20080501-05] - DOI - PubMed
Zhao 2015 {published data only}
    1. Zhao XB, Li KJ, Zhao ZH, Jia ZY. Comparison the effectiveness of wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized LASIK for myopia and myopic astigmatism. International Eye Science 2015;15(12):2130-3. [DOI: 10.3980/j.issn.1672-5123.2015.12.28] - DOI

References to studies excluded from this review

Ahn 2013 {published data only}
    1. Ahn JM, Choi BJ, Kim EK, Sgrignoli B, Kim TI. Three different aspheric treatment algorithms of laser-assisted sub-epithelial keratectomy in patients with high myopia. Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology 2013;57(2):191-8. [DOI: ] - PubMed
Alió 2006 {published data only}
    1. Alió JL, Montés-Mico R. Wavefront-guided versus standard LASIK enhancement for residual refractive errors. Ophthalmology 2006;113(2):191-7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.10.004] - DOI - PubMed
Caster 2005 {published data only}
    1. Caster AI, Hoff JL, Ruiz R. Conventional vs wavefront-guided LASIK using the LADARVision4000 excimer laser. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2005;21(6):S786-91. - PubMed
Chayet 2012 {published data only}
    1. Chayet A, Bains HS. Prospective, randomized, double-blind, contralateral eye comparison of myopic LASIK with optimized aspheric or prolate ablations. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2012;28(2):112-9. [DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20111219-01] - DOI - PubMed
Ctri /2017/03/008075 {published data only}
    1. CTRI/2017/03/008075. Comparative study of topography of corneal layers for refractive surgery planning. http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/showallp.php?mid1=17119&EncHid=&userNa... (first received 14 March 2017).
Danasoury 2012 {published data only}
    1. Danasoury AM, Holladay J, Waring GO, Pieger S Bains HS. A contralateral, randomized comparison of optimized prolate ablation and conventional LASIK for myopia with the NIDEK excimer laser platform. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2012;28(7):453-61. [DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20120621-01] - DOI - PubMed
Du 2006 {published data only}
    1. Du CX, Yang YB, Shen Y, Wang Y, Dougherty PJ. Bilateral comparison of conventional versus topographic-guided customized ablation for myopic LASIK with the NIDEK EC-5000. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2006;22(7):642-6. - PubMed
Du 2007 {published data only}
    1. Du CX, Shen Y, Wang Y. Comparison of high order aberration after conventional and customized ablation in myopic LASIK in different eyes of the same patient. Journal of Zhejiang University Science B 2007;8(3):177-80. [DOI: 10.1631/jzus.2007.B0177] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Fan 2010 {published data only}
    1. Fan Q, Zhang JH, Zheng L, Feng HZ, Wang HY. Higher-order aberrations after wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis compared to standard LASIK. International Journal of Ophthalmology 2010;10(7):1310-3. [DOI: ]
Faramarzi 2017 {published data only}
    1. Faramarzi A, Moshirfar M, Karimian F, Delfazayebaher S, Kheiri B. Aspheric versus wavefront-guided aspheric photorefractive keratectomy in eyes with significant astigmatism. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2017;43(12):1534-40. [DOI: ] - PubMed
Foo 2011 {published data only}
    1. Foo SK, Sharanjeet K, Manan FA, Low AJ. The changes of tear status after conventional and wavefront guided intraLASIK. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences 2011;18(2):32-9. - PMC - PubMed
Ghoreishi 2009 {published data only}
    1. Ghoreishi SM, Naderibeni A, Peyman A, Rismanchian A, Eslami F. Aspheric profile versus wavefront-guided ablation photorefractive keratectomy for the correction of myopia using the allergretto eye Q. European Journal of Ophthalmology 2009;19(4):544-53. - PubMed
Goyal 2014 {published data only}
    1. Goyal JL, Garg A, Arora R, Jain P Goel Y. Comparative evaluation of higher-order aberrations and corneal asphericity between wavefront-guided and aspheric LASIK for myopia. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2014;30(11):777-84. [DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20141021-10] - DOI - PubMed
Guo 2009 {published data only}
    1. Guo N, Zhou YH, Zhang FJ, Zhang J. Visual performance of wavefront-guided LASIK with iris-registration for myopic astigmatism. Journal of Dalian Medical University 2009;31(6):675-8.
Hantera 2009 {published data only}
    1. Hantera M. Comparison of postoperative wavefront aberrations after NIDEK CXIII optimized aspheric transition zone treatment and OPD-guided custom aspheric treatment. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2009;25(Suppl 10):S922-6. [DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20090915-04] - DOI - PubMed
Hazarbassanov 2003 {published data only}
    1. Hazarbassanov RM, Kaiserman I, Varssano D, Bishara S, Wender A, Bergman D, et al. Comparison of high order aberrations included by regular LASIK vs. wavefront guided LASIK at various optic zones. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2003;44(13):ARVO E-abstract 2557.
Hufendiek 2006 {published data only}
    1. Hufendiek K, Hermann WA, Prahs P, Gabel VP. Conventional and wave front guided EpiLASIK With a 500 Hz excimer laser system for the correction of myopia: 6 months results. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2006;47(13):ARVO E-abstract 521.
Jie 2012 {published data only}
    1. Jie LM, Wang Q, Zheng L. Real-time iris recognition combined with wavefront aberration guided LASIK for the correction of moderate or high myopic astigmatism. International Eye Science 2012;12(9):1677-9.
Jun 2017 {published data only}
    1. Jun I, Kang DS, Tan J, Choi JY, Heo W, Kim JY, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes between wavefront-optimized versus corneal wavefront-guided transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy for myopic astigmatism. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2017;43(2):174-82. [DOI: ] - PubMed
Karamian 2006 {published data only}
    1. Karamian AA, Sukhanova EV. Comparative clinical study of the standard lasik operation versus optimized ORK "Corwave" keratoablation (a preliminary communication). Vestnik Oftalmologii 2006;122(3):6-8. - PubMed
Khalifa 2009 {published data only}
    1. Khalifa M, El-Kateb M, Shaheen MS. Iris registration in wavefront-guided LASIK to correct mixed astigmatism. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2009;35(3):433-7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.11.039] - DOI - PubMed
Khalifa 2015 {published data only}
    1. Khalifa MA, Mossallam EF, Massoud TH, Shaheen MS. Comparison of visual outcomes after variable spot scanning ablation versus wavefront-optimized myopic LASIK. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2015;31(1):22-8. [DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20141218-03] - DOI - PubMed
Khalifa 2017 {published data only}
    1. Khalifa MA, Alsahn MF, Shaheen MS, Pinero DP. Comparative analysis of the efficacy of astigmatic correction after wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized LASIK in low and moderate myopic eyes. International Journal of Ophthalmology 2017;10(2):285-92. [DOI: ] - PMC - PubMed
Lee 2004 {published data only}
    1. Lee H, Lee K, Kim EK, Seong G, Kim S, Seo K, et al. Comparison of functional vision between wavefront and conventional LASIK determined by glare disability and contrast sensitivity. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2004;45(13):ARVO E-abstract 1102.
Li 2008 {published data only}
    1. Li YY, Zhai GG, Qiu Y, Di YL, Qu Z, Huang YH. Comparison of the curative effect between IR-LASIK and LASIK in high astigmatism treatment. International Journal of Ophthalmology 2008;8(11):2281-3.
Mastropasqua 2004 {published data only}
    1. Mastropasqua L, Nubile M, Ciancaglini M, Toto L, Ballone E. Prospective randomized comparison of wavefront-guided and conventional photorefractive keratectomy for myopia with the meditec MEL 70 laser. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2004;20(5):422-31. - PubMed
Merchea 2007 {published data only}
    1. Merchea MM, Youssefi G. Advanced ablation algorithms for the elimination of surgically induced spherical aberration. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2007;48(13):ARVO E-Abstract 5341.
Moshirfar 2007 {published data only}
    1. Moshirfar M, Espandar L, Meyer JJ, Tanner JR, Holz HA. Prospective randomized trial of wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis with the CustomCornea and CustomVue laser systems. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2007;33(10):1727-33. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.06.037] - DOI - PubMed
Moussa 2016 {published data only}
    1. Moussa S, Dexl A, Krall EM, Dietrich M, Arlt EM, Grabner G, et al. Comparison of short-term refractive surgery outcomes after wavefront-guided versus non-wavefront-guided LASIK. European Journal of Ophthalmology 2016;26(6):529-35. [DOI: ] - PubMed
Nagy 2002 {published data only}
    1. Nagy ZZ, Palagyi-Deak I, Kovacs A, Kelemen E, Forster W. First results with wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy for hyperopia. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2002;18(5):S620-3. - PubMed
Nassiri 2015 {published data only}
    1. Nassiri N, Sheibani K, Azimi A, Khosravi FM, Heravian J, Yekta A, et al. Refractive outcomes, contrast sensitivity, HOAs, and patient satisfaction in moderate myopia: wavefront-optimized versus tissue-saving PRK. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2015;31(10):683-90. [DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20150831-01] - DOI - PubMed
NCT03075176 {published data only}
    1. NCT03075176. Topo-guided LASIK and photorefractive keratectomy versus wavefront LASIK and photorefractive keratectomy. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03075176 (first received 9 March 2017).
Oshika 1999 {published data only}
    1. Oshika T, Klyce SD, Applegate RA, Howland HC, El Danasoury MA. Comparison of corneal wavefront aberrations after photorefractive keratectomy and laser in situ keratomileusis. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1999;127(1):1-7. [DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9394(98)00288-8] - DOI - PubMed
Ozulken 2019 {published data only}
    1. Ozulken K, Yuksel E, Tekin K, Kiziltoprak H, Aydogan S. Comparison of wavefront-optimized ablation and topography-guided contoura ablation with LYRA protocol in LASIK. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2019;35(4):222-9. [DOI: ] - PubMed
Padmanabhan 2008 {published data only}
    1. Padmanabhan P, Mrochen M, Basuthkar S, Viswanathan D, Joseph R. Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis: contralateral comparative study. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2008;34(3):389-97. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.10.028] - DOI - PubMed
Randleman 2008 {published data only}
    1. Randleman JB, Perez-Straziota C, Stulting R. Visual outcomes with wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized LASIK. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2008;49(13):ARVO E-abstract 2913.
Shehadeh 2018 {published data only}
    1. Shehadeh MM, Akkawi MT, Aghbar AA, Musmar MT, Khabbas MN, Kharouf MF, et al. Outcomes of wavefront-optimized laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy for correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism over one year follow-up. Open Ophthalmology Journal 2018;12:256-63. [DOI: ] - PMC - PubMed
Shen 2010 {published data only}
    1. Shen EP, Chen WL, Hu FR. Manual limbal markings versus iris-registration software for correction of myopic astigmatism by laser in situ keratomileusis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2010;36(3):431-6. [DOI: ] - PubMed
Stonecipher 2008 {published data only}
    1. Stonecipher KG, Kezirian GM. Wavefront-optimized versus wavefront-guided LASIK for myopic astigmatism with the ALLEGRETTO WAVE: three-month results of a prospective FDA trial. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2008;24(4):S424-30. - PubMed
Taneri 2013 {published data only}
    1. Taneri S, Oehler S, MacRae SM. Aspheric wavefront-guided versus wavefront-guided LASIK for myopic astigmatism with the Technolas 217z100 excimer laser. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2013;251(2):609-16. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Tiwari 2018 {published data only}
    1. Tiwari NN, Sachdev GS, Ramamurthy S, Dandapani R. Comparative analysis of visual outcomes and ocular aberrations following wavefront optimized and topography-guided customized femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia and myopic astigmatism: a contralateral eye study. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 2018;66(11):1558-61. [DOI: ] - PMC - PubMed
Toy 2014 {published data only}
    1. Toy BC, Manche EE. Vector analysis of compound myopic astigmatism comparing wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized excimer platforms. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2014;55(13):ARVO E-abstract 1518.
Urbano 2008 {published data only}
    1. Urbano AP, Nosé W. Refractional results of LASIK retreatment with wavefront-guided ablation versus standard ablation. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia 2008;71(5):651-9. - PubMed
Urbano 2009 {published data only}
    1. Urbano AP, Nosé W. Correction of ocular aberrations in custom and standard LASIK retreatments. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia 2009;72(5):687-93. - PubMed
Von Mohrenfels 2009 {published data only}
    1. Von Mohrenfels CW, Khoramnia R, Salgado J, Maier MM, Lohmann C. Wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimised LASEK--comparison of clinical results. Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde 2009;226(10):839-43. [DOI: ] - PubMed
Wang 2004 {published data only}
    1. Wang Z, Yang B, Zhang C, Huang GF, Chen JQ. Wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia. Chinese Journal of Ophthalmology 2004;40(1):9-12. - PubMed
Yu 2008b {published data only}
    1. Yu J, Chen H, Wang F. Patient satisfaction and visual symptoms after wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized LASIK with the WaveLight platform. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2008;24(5):477-86. - PubMed
Zhai 2008 {published data only}
    1. Zhai GG, Li YY, Qiu Y, Di YL, Qu Z. Comparison of ablation depth between wavefront-quided LASIK and traditional LASIK. International Journal of Ophthalmology 2008;8(2):307-9.
Zhang 2008 {published data only}
    1. Zhang J, Zhou YH, Wang NL, Li R. Comparison of visual performance between conventional LASIK and wavefront-guided LASIK with iris-registration. Chinese Medical Journal 2008;121(2):137-42. - PubMed
Zhang 2013 {published data only}
    1. Zhang J, Zhou YH, Li R, Tian L. Visual performance after conventional LASIK and wavefront-guided LASIK with iris-registration: results at 1 year. International Journal of Ophthalmology 2013;6(4):498-504. [DOI: ] - PMC - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Chisholm 2004 {published data only}
    1. Chisholm CM, Anderson DF, Kvansakul J, Khan A, Gartry DS, Barbur JL. Prospective, randomized, double-masked study of conventional versus wavefront-guided LASIK: visual performance outcomes. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2004;45(13):ARVO E-abstract 202.
Merchea 2003 {published data only}
    1. Merchea M, Matthaeus A, Cox I. The impact of wavefront guided lasik surgery on visual function. American Academy of Optometry 2003:127.

Additional references

Altman 2012
    1. Altman DG, Moher D, Schultz KF. Improving the reporting of randomised trials: The CONSORT statement and beyond. Statistics in Medicine 2012;31(25):2985-97. - PubMed
Barsam 2014
    1. Barsam A, Allan BD. Excimer laser refractive surgery versus phakic intraocular lenses for the correction of moderate to high myopia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 6. Art. No: CD007679. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007679.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Cho 2012
    1. Cho P, Cheung SW. Retardation of Myopia in Orthokeratology (ROMIO) study: a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2012;53(11):7077-85. - PubMed
Covidence [Computer program]
    1. Veritas Health Innovation Covidence. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation, accessed 6 July 2019. Available at covidence.org.
Eydelman 2017
    1. Eydelman M, Hilmantel G, Tarver ME, Hofmeister EM, May J, Hammel K, et al. Symptoms and satisfaction of patients in the patient-reported outcomes with laser in Situ Keratomileusis (PROWL) studies. JAMA Ophthalmology 2017;135(1):13-22. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Fares 2011
    1. Fares U, Suleman H, Al-Aqaba MA, Otri AM, Said DG, Dua HS. Efficacy, predictability, and safety of wavefront-guided refractive laser treatment: metaanalysis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2011;37(8):1465-75. - PubMed
Feng 2011
    1. Feng Y, Yu J, Wang Q. Meta-analysis of wavefront-guided vs. wavefront-optimized LASIK for myopia. Optometry and Vision Science 2011;88(12):1463-9. - PubMed
Foulks 2006
    1. Foulks GN. Prolonging contact lens wear and making contact lens wear safer. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2006;141(2):369-73. - PubMed
Glanville 2006
    1. Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JN, Camosso-Stefinovic J. How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2006;94(2):130-6. - PMC - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT [Computer program]
    1. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime) GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed 10 Janauary 2020. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), 2015. Available at gradepro.org.
He 2015
    1. He L, Manche EE. Contralateral eye-to-eye comparison of wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmology 2015;133(1):51-9. - PubMed
Higgins 2020
    1. Higgins JP, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JA (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Kempen 2004
    1. Kempen JH, Mitchell P, Lee KE, Tielsch JM, Broman AT, Taylor HR, et al. The prevalence of refractive errors among adults in the United States, Western Europe, and Australia. Archives of Ophthalmology 2004;122(4):495-505. - PubMed
Kim 2008
    1. Kim A, Chuck RS. Wavefront-guided customized corneal ablation. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 2008;19(4):314-20. - PubMed
Kobashi 2014
    1. Kobashi H, Kamiya K, Hoshi K, Igarashi A, Shimizu K. Wavefront-guided versus non-wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy for myopia: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLOS One 2014;9(7):e103605. - PMC - PubMed
Krueger 2008
    1. Krueger RR, Rocha KM. Introduction to wavefront-optimized, wavefront-guided, and topography-guided customized ablation: fifth year in review. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2008;24(4):S417-8. - PubMed
Kuryan 2017
    1. Kuryan J, Cheema A, Chuck RS. Laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) versus laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for correcting myopia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 2. Art. No: CD011080. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011080.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Li 2014
    1. Li SM, Wu SS, Kang MT, Liu Y, Jia SM, Li SY, et al. Atropine slows myopia progression more in Asian than white children by meta-analysis. Optometry and Vision Science 2014;91(3):342-50. - PubMed
Li 2015
    1. Li SM, Kang MT, Wu SS, Liu LR, Li H, Chen Z, et al. Efficacy, safety and acceptability of orthokeratology on slowing axial elongation in myopic children by meta-analysis. Current Eye Research 2016;41:600-8. - PubMed
Li 2016
    1. Li SM, Zhan S, Li SY, Peng XX, Hu J, Law HA, et al. Laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of myopia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 2. Art. No: CD009799. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009799.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Liang 2009
    1. Liang YB, Wong TY, Sun LP, Tao QS, Wang JJ, Yang XH, et al. Refractive errors in a rural Chinese adult population: the Handan Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2009;116(11):2119-27. - PubMed
Manche 2018
    1. Manche E, Roe J. Recent advances in wavefront-guided LASIK. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 2018;29(4):286-91. - PubMed
Mrochen 2000
    1. Mrochen M, Kaemmerer M, Seiler T. Wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis: early results in three eyes. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2000;16(2):116-21. - PubMed
Murdoch 1998
    1. Murdoch I. People and eyes: statistics in ophthalmology. Community Eye Health 1998;11(27):43. [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Resnikoff 2008
    1. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Mariotti SP, Pokharel GP. Global magnitude of visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive errors in 2004. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2008;86(1):63-70. - PMC - PubMed
Review Manager 2019 [Computer program]
    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.4. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2019.
Sandoval 2016
    1. Sandoval HP, Donnenfeld ED, Kohnen T, Lindstrom RL, Potvin R, Tremblay DM, et al. Modern laser in situ keratomileusis outcomes. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2016;42(8):1224-34. - PubMed
Schünemann 2020
    1. Schünemann HJ, Higgins JP, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Skoetz N, et al. Chapter 14: Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Sekundo 2011
    1. Sekundo W, Kunert KS, Blum M. Small incision corneal refractive surgery using the small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) procedure for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism: results of a 6 month prospective study. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2011;95(3):335-9. - PubMed
Settas 2012
    1. Settas G, Settas C, Minos E, Yeung IY. Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) versus laser assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for hyperopia correction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 6. Art. No: CD007112. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007112.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Shortt 2013
    1. Shortt AJ, Allan BD, Evans JR. Laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for myopia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 1. Art. No: CD005135. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005135.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Smadja 2012
    1. Smadja D, Reggiani-Mello G, Santhiago MR, Krueger RR. Wavefront ablation profiles in refractive surgery: description, results, and limitations. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2012;28(3):224-32. - PubMed
Walline 2020
    1. Walline JJ, Lindsley KB, Vedula SS, Cotter SA, Mutti DO, Ng SM, et al. Interventions to slow progression of myopia in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020, Issue 1. Art. No: CD004916. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004916.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Li 2017
    1. Li SM, Kang MT, Zhou Y, Wang NL, Lindsley K. Wavefront excimer laser refractive surgery for adults with refractive errors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 6. Art. No: CD012687. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012687] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources