Objective A systematic review of literature was performed to compare various visual function parameters including the final visual acuity outcome and/or adverse events between corneal refractive surgery （CLRS） and p...Objective A systematic review of literature was performed to compare various visual function parameters including the final visual acuity outcome and/or adverse events between corneal refractive surgery （CLRS） and phakic intraocular lens implantation （p-IOLi） in the treatment of refractive amblyopic children.Data sources Two reviewers independently searched the PubMed,EMBASE,and Controlled Trials Register databases for publications from 1991 to 2013.Study selection There were 25 articles,including 597 patients and 682 eyes,was included in CLRS group.Among them,21 articles reported the use of CLRS in the treatment of myopic anisometropia for 318 patients （13 photorefractive keratectomy or laser epithelial keratomileusis and eight laser in situ keratomileusis）.And 11 articles had the results of CLRS in treating hyperopic anisometropic amblyopia children.Eleven articles reported the effect of p-IOLi for treating high myopia or anisometropic amblyopia,including 61 patients （75 eyes）.Age,pre-and postoperation best-corrected vision acuity （BCVA）,and spherical equivalent （SE） were compared in CLRS and p-IOLi groups.Results The average age of CLRS group and p-IOLi group has no statistically significant difference.The SE in CLRS group for myopic anisometropia amblyopia patients was （-10.13±2.73） diopters （D） and for hyperopic anisometropia amblyopia patients was （5.58±1.28） D.In p-IOLi group the SE was （-14.01±1.93） D.BCVA was improved significantly in both groups,and even better in p-IOLi group.Refractive errors were corrected in both groups,but there was no clinically significant difference in final SE between each group.More than one-half of the children had improved binocular fusion and stereopsis function in both groups.Conclusions Both CLRS group and p-IOLi group showed their advantage in treating refractive amblyopia in children.In comparing p-IOLi with CLRS for treatment of refractive amblyopia,no statistically significant difference in final BCVA was observed.展开更多
Background It is unclear whether a laser epithelial keratomileusis （LASEK） has any significant advantage over a photorefractive keratectomy （PRK） for correcting myopia. We undertook this meta-analysis of randomize...Background It is unclear whether a laser epithelial keratomileusis （LASEK） has any significant advantage over a photorefractive keratectomy （PRK） for correcting myopia. We undertook this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to examine possible differences in efficacy, accuracy, safety and side-effects between two methods, LASEK and PRK, for correcting myopia. Methods A systematic literature retrieval was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Chinese Bio-medicine Database, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify potentially relevant randomized controlled trials. The statistical analysis was performed using a RevMan 4.2 software. The results included efficacy outcomes （proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity （UCVA）〉 20/20 at 1 month and 12 months post-treatment）, accuracy outcomes （proportion of eyes within ±0.50 diopters （D） of target refraction at 1 month and 12 months post-treatment）, safety outcomes （loss of 〉2 lines of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity （BSCVA） at 〉 6 months post-treatment）, mean pain scores on day 1 post-treatment, and mean corneal haze scores at 6 and 12 months post-treatment. Results Seven articles describing a total of 604 eyes with myopia from 0 to -9.0 D were identified in this meta-analysis. The combined results showed that the efficacy and accuracy outcomes between the two groups at 1 month and 12 months post-treatment were comparable. No patient lost 〉 2 lines of BSCVA at 〉 6 months post-treatment in four relevant trials. Compared with PRK, LASEK did not relieve discomfort on day 1 post-treatment or reduce corneal haze intensity at 6 and 12 months post-treatment. Conclusions According to the available data, LASEK does not appear to have any advantage over PRK for correcting myopia from 0 to -9.0 D. This meta-analysis focuses mainly on the comparison of the early, mid-term and mid-long term results of the two methods. Additional studies to compare the long-term （〉one year） results should be considered.展开更多
文摘Objective A systematic review of literature was performed to compare various visual function parameters including the final visual acuity outcome and/or adverse events between corneal refractive surgery （CLRS） and phakic intraocular lens implantation （p-IOLi） in the treatment of refractive amblyopic children.Data sources Two reviewers independently searched the PubMed,EMBASE,and Controlled Trials Register databases for publications from 1991 to 2013.Study selection There were 25 articles,including 597 patients and 682 eyes,was included in CLRS group.Among them,21 articles reported the use of CLRS in the treatment of myopic anisometropia for 318 patients （13 photorefractive keratectomy or laser epithelial keratomileusis and eight laser in situ keratomileusis）.And 11 articles had the results of CLRS in treating hyperopic anisometropic amblyopia children.Eleven articles reported the effect of p-IOLi for treating high myopia or anisometropic amblyopia,including 61 patients （75 eyes）.Age,pre-and postoperation best-corrected vision acuity （BCVA）,and spherical equivalent （SE） were compared in CLRS and p-IOLi groups.Results The average age of CLRS group and p-IOLi group has no statistically significant difference.The SE in CLRS group for myopic anisometropia amblyopia patients was （-10.13±2.73） diopters （D） and for hyperopic anisometropia amblyopia patients was （5.58±1.28） D.In p-IOLi group the SE was （-14.01±1.93） D.BCVA was improved significantly in both groups,and even better in p-IOLi group.Refractive errors were corrected in both groups,but there was no clinically significant difference in final SE between each group.More than one-half of the children had improved binocular fusion and stereopsis function in both groups.Conclusions Both CLRS group and p-IOLi group showed their advantage in treating refractive amblyopia in children.In comparing p-IOLi with CLRS for treatment of refractive amblyopia,no statistically significant difference in final BCVA was observed.
文摘Background It is unclear whether a laser epithelial keratomileusis （LASEK） has any significant advantage over a photorefractive keratectomy （PRK） for correcting myopia. We undertook this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to examine possible differences in efficacy, accuracy, safety and side-effects between two methods, LASEK and PRK, for correcting myopia. Methods A systematic literature retrieval was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Chinese Bio-medicine Database, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify potentially relevant randomized controlled trials. The statistical analysis was performed using a RevMan 4.2 software. The results included efficacy outcomes （proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity （UCVA）〉 20/20 at 1 month and 12 months post-treatment）, accuracy outcomes （proportion of eyes within ±0.50 diopters （D） of target refraction at 1 month and 12 months post-treatment）, safety outcomes （loss of 〉2 lines of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity （BSCVA） at 〉 6 months post-treatment）, mean pain scores on day 1 post-treatment, and mean corneal haze scores at 6 and 12 months post-treatment. Results Seven articles describing a total of 604 eyes with myopia from 0 to -9.0 D were identified in this meta-analysis. The combined results showed that the efficacy and accuracy outcomes between the two groups at 1 month and 12 months post-treatment were comparable. No patient lost 〉 2 lines of BSCVA at 〉 6 months post-treatment in four relevant trials. Compared with PRK, LASEK did not relieve discomfort on day 1 post-treatment or reduce corneal haze intensity at 6 and 12 months post-treatment. Conclusions According to the available data, LASEK does not appear to have any advantage over PRK for correcting myopia from 0 to -9.0 D. This meta-analysis focuses mainly on the comparison of the early, mid-term and mid-long term results of the two methods. Additional studies to compare the long-term （〉one year） results should be considered.
