Wen Daizong, McAlinden Colm, Flitcroft Ian, Tu Ruixue, Wang Qinmei, Alió Jorge, Marshall John, Huang Yingying, Song Benhao, Hu Liang, Zhao Yune, Zhu Senmiao, Gao Rongrong, Bao Fangjun, Yu Ayong, Yu Ye, Lian Hengli, Huang Jinhai
School of Optometry and Ophthalmology and Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China.
School of Optometry and Ophthalmology and Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China; University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom; ABM University Health Board, Swansea, United Kingdom; Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Am J Ophthalmol. 2017 Jun;178:65-78. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.03.013. Epub 2017 Mar 20.
To compare the postoperative efficacy, predictability, safety, and visual quality of all major forms of laser corneal refractive surgeries for correcting myopia.
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the US trial registry was conducted up to November 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting in accordance with the eligibility criteria were included in this review. We performed a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis.
Forty-eight RCTs were identified. For efficacy (uncorrected visual acuity [UCVA]), there were no statistically significant differences between any pair of treatments analyzed. The SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking curve) ranking (from best to worst) was femtosecond-based laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK), LASIK, small-incision lenticule extraction, femtosecond lenticule extraction (FLEx), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK), epipolis (Epi)-LASIK, transepithelial PRK (T-PRK). For predictability (refractive spherical equivalent [SE]), a statistically significant difference was found when FS-LASIK was compared with LASIK (odds ratio [OR] 2.29, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.20-4.14), PRK (OR 2.16, 95% CrI 1.15-4.03), LASEK (OR 2.09, 95% CrI 1.08-4.55), and Epi-LASIK (OR 2.74, 95% CrI 1.11-6.20). The SUCRA ranking (from best to worst) was FS-LASIK, T-PRK, LASEK, PRK, LASIK, Epi-LASIK. There were no statistically significant differences in the safety (best spectacle-corrected visual acuity) comparisons. For both postoperative higher-order aberrations (HOAs) and contrast sensitivity (CS), there were no statistically significant differences between any pair of treatments analyzed. The SUCRA ranking results show that some corneal surface ablation techniques (PRK and LASEK) rank highest.
This network meta-analysis shows that there were no statistically significant differences in either visual outcomes (efficacy and safety) or visual quality (HOAs and CS). FS-LASIK behaved better in predictability than any other type of surgeries.
比较矫正近视的所有主要形式的激光角膜屈光手术的术后疗效、可预测性、安全性和视觉质量。
系统评价和网状Meta分析。
截至2015年11月,检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆和美国试验注册库。本评价纳入了符合纳入标准的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们进行了贝叶斯随机效应网状Meta分析。
共识别出48项RCT。对于疗效(未矫正视力[UCVA]),所分析的任何一对治疗之间均无统计学显著差异。累积排序曲线下面积(SUCRA)排名(从最佳到最差)为飞秒激光原位角膜磨镶术(FS-LASIK)、准分子原位角膜磨镶术(LASIK)、小切口基质透镜切除术、飞秒透镜切除术(FLEx)、准分子激光角膜切削术(PRK)、激光上皮下角膜磨镶术(LASEK)、角膜上皮下准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术(Epi-LASIK)、经上皮PRK(T-PRK)。对于可预测性(等效球镜度[SE]),当FS-LASIK与LASIK(优势比[OR]2.29,95%可信区间[CrI]1.20-4.14)、PRK(OR 2.16,95%CrI 1.15-4.03)、LASEK(OR 2.09,95%CrI 1.08-4.55)和Epi-LASIK(OR 2.74,95%CrI 1.11-6.20)比较时,发现有统计学显著差异。SUCRA排名(从最佳到最差)为FS-LASIK、T-PRK、LASEK、PRK、LASIK、Epi-LASIK。安全性(最佳矫正视力)比较中无统计学显著差异。对于术后高阶像差(HOA)和对比敏感度(CS),所分析的任何一对治疗之间均无统计学显著差异。SUCRA排名结果显示,一些角膜表面切削技术(PRK和LASEK)排名最高。
该网状Meta分析表明,视觉结果(疗效和安全性)或视觉质量(HOA和CS)方面均无统计学显著差异。FS-LASIK在可预测性方面比任何其他类型的手术表现更好。