J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2016 Mar;57(3):380-389. 10.3341/jkos.2016.57.3.380.

Comparison of 10-year Clinical Results between Laser in situ Keratomileusis and Surface Ablation for Moderate to High Myopia

• Kim HW
• Na KS
• Kim MS

• KMID: 2213238
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2016.57.3.380

Abstract

PURPOSE
To compare the long-term prognosis of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and surface ablation in moderate to high myopia.
METHODS
A retrospective study including 87 eyes of 44 myopic patients treated with LASIK or surface ablation from 1995 to 2005 was performed. Follow-up visits were performed at 3 months, 1 year, 5 years, and 8 years. All treated eyes were divided into 2 groups according to preoperative spherical equivalent (SE)- moderate myopia (<-6.0 diopters [D]) and high myopia (≥-6.0 D). The main outcome measures were postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best corrected visual acuity, SE, mean keratometry, safety index, efficacy index, predictability, and complications.
RESULTS
Mean SE was -7.05 ± 2.49 D in the LASIK group and -5.25 ± 1.23 D in the surface ablation group. The 10-year SE was -1.78 ± 1.22 D in the LASIK group and -1.35 ± 1.09 D in the surface ablation group, and there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups. At 10 years postoperatively, UCVA was log MAR 0.155 ± 0.161 in the LASIK group and log MAR 0.095 ± 0.140 in the surface ablation group. There were no significant differences in postoperative mean SE, safety index, efficacy index, or complications between the LASIK and surface ablation group at 10 years.
CONCLUSIONS
This 10-year follow-up study shows that LASIK and surface ablation for moderate to high myopia have no statistical differences in mean SE, safety index, efficacy index, or complications.

Keyword

Laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK); Laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK); Myopia; Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK); Surface ablation

MeSH Terms

Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ*
Myopia*
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Prognosis
Retrospective Studies
Visual Acuity

Figure

• 

  Figure 1. The 10-year-changes in spherical equivalent (mean ± SD) of eyes that underwent refractive surgeries. (A) LASIK. (B) Surface ablation. ‘Group 1’ is ‘low to moderate myopia group with spherical equivalent < −6 D’ and ‘Group 2’ is ‘high myopia group with spherical equivalent ≥ −6 D’. LASIK = laser in situ keratomileusis.

• 

  Figure 2. Bar graph representing predictability of postoperative spherical equivalent (± 1.0 diopters) at each point after refractive surgery. (A) LASIK. (B) Surface ablation. ‘Group 1’ is ‘low to moderate myopia group with spherical equivalent < −6 D’ and ‘Group 2’ is ‘high myopia group with spherical equivalent ≥ −6 D’. LASIK = laser in situ keratomileusis.

Reference

References

1. Trokel SL, Srinivasan R, Braren B. Excimer laser surgery of the cornea. Am J Ophthalmol. 1983; 96:710–5.

2. McDonald MB, Liu JC, Byrd TJ, et al. Central photorefractive keratectomy for myopia. Partially sighted and normally sighted eyes. Ophthalmology. 1991; 98:1327–37.

3. Pallikaris IG, Papatzanaki ME, Stathi EZ, et al. Laser in situ keratomileusis. Lasers Surg Med. 1990; 10:463–8.

4. Pallikaris IG, Siganos DS. Laser in situ keratomileusis to treat myopia: early experience. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997; 23:39–49.

5. Pallikaris IG, Papatzanaki ME, Siganos DS, Tsilimbaris MK. A corneal flap technique for laser in situ keratomileusis. Human studies. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991; 109:1699–702.

6. Buratto L, Ferrari M. Indications, techniques, results, limits, and complications of laser in situ keratomileusis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1997; 8:59–66.

7. Sridhar MS, Rao SK, Vajpayee RB, et al. Complications of laser-in-situ-keratomileusis. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2002; 50:265–82.

8. Knorz MC. Flap and interface complications in LASIK. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2002; 13:242–5.

9. Seitz B, Rozsíval P, Feuermannova A, et al. Penetrating keratoplasty for iatrogenic keratoconus after repeat myopic laser in situ keratomileusis: histologic findings and literature review. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:2217–24.

10. Schallhorn SC, Amesbury EC, Tanzer DJ. Avoidance, recognition, and management of LASIK complications. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 141:733–9.

11. Taneri S, Zieske JD, Azar DT. Evolution, techniques, clinical outcomes, and pathophysiology of LASEK: review of the literature. Surv Ophthalmol. 2004; 49:576–602.

12. Lee JB, Seong GJ, Lee JH, et al. Comparison of laser epithelial keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy for low to moderate myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27:565–70.

13. O'Doherty M, Kirwan C, O'Keeffe M, O'Doherty J. Postoperative pain following epi-LASIK, LASEK, and PRK for myopia. J Refract Surg. 2007; 23:133–8.

14. Korean External Eye Disease Society. Cornea. 3rd ed.1. Seoul: Ilchokak;2013. p. 722–68.

15. Ghadhfan F, Al-Rajhi A, Wagoner MD. Laser in situ keratomileusis versus surface ablation: visual outcomes and complications. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:2041–8.

16. Tobaigy FM, Ghanem RC, Sayegh RR, et al. A control-matched comparison of laser epithelial keratomileusis and laser in situ keratomileusis for low to moderate myopia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 142:901–8.

17. Scerrati E. Laser in situ keratomileusis vs. laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASIK vs. LASEK). J Refract Surg. 2001; 17(2 Suppl):S219–21.

18. Kim JK, Kim SS, Lee HK, et al. Laser in situ keratomileusis versus laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy for the correction of high myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30:1405–11.

19. Na KS, Chung SH, Kim JK, et al. Comparison of LASIK and surface ablation by using propensity score analysis: a multicenter study in Korea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53:7116–21.

20. Alió JL, Soria F, Abbouda A, Peña-García P. Laser in situ keratomileusis for −6.00 to −18.00 diopters of myopia and up to −5.00 diopters of astigmatism: 15-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015; 41:33–40.

21. Alió JL, Muftuoglu O, Ortiz D, et al. Ten-year follow-up of photorefractive keratectomy for myopia of more than −6 diopters. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008; 145:37–45.

22. Alió JL, Muftuoglu O, Ortiz D, et al. Ten-year follow-up of photorefractive keratectomy for myopia of less than −6 diopters. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008; 145:29–36.

23. O'Doherty M, O'Keeffe M, Kelleher C. Five year follow up of laser in situ keratomileusis for all levels of myopia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006; 90:20–3.

24. Jung BJ, Oh TH, Chung SK. Eight-Year Follow-up of Laser Epithelial Keratomileusis for Correcting Moderate and High Myopia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2012; 53:1438–44.

25. Mansour AM, Ghabra M. Cataractogenesis after Repeat Laser in situ Keratomileusis. Case Rep Ophthalmol. 2012; 3:262–5.

26. Kim DH, Kim JH. Two year clinical results of LASEK (laser epithelial keratomileusis) for correcting myopia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2003; 44:2473–9.

27. Kong HY, Ko IH, Lee JB. Comparison of laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) in one eye and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in other eye for low to moderate myopia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2001; 42:825–31.

28. Heitzmann J, Binder PS, Kassar BS, Nordan LT. The correction of high myopia using the excimer laser. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993; 111:1627–34.

29. Condon PI, Mulhern M, Fulcher T, et al. Laser intrastromal keratomileusis for high myopia and myopic astigmatism. Br J Ophthalmol. 1997; 81:199–206.

30. Farah SG, Azar DT, Gurdal C, Wong J. Laser in situ keratomileusis: literature review of a developing technique. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998; 24:989–1006.

31. Alió JL, Muftuoglu O, Ortiz D, et al. Ten-year follow-up of laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia of up to −10 diopters. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008; 145:46–54.

32. Alió JL, Muftuoglu O, Ortiz D, et al. Ten-year follow-up of laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008; 145:55–64.

33. Rajan MS, Jaycock P, O'Brart D, et al. A long-term study of photorefractive keratectomy; 12-year follow-up. Ophthalmology. 2004; 111:1813–24.

34. de Benito-Llopis L, Alió JL, Ortiz D, et al. Ten-year follow-up of excimer laser surface ablation for myopia in thin corneas. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009; 147:768–73. 773.e1-2.