Aim: To investigate the potential differences between topography-guided (TG) and wavefront-optimized (WFO) laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for the treatment of myopia.
Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to determine relevant trials comparing LASIK with TG and WFO from the time of library construction to August 2020, and The PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, EMBASE and Chinese databases (i.e. CNKI, CBM, WAN FANG and VIP) were accessed. The data on visual acuity, refractive status and wavefront aberration were retrieved and evaluated from three to six months after surgery. STATA (version 14.0) software was used for statistical analysis. A cumulative Meta-analysis was simultaneously performed.
Results: Eleven studies with a total of 1425 eyes were incorporated. No statistically significant differences were evident between TG and WFO ablation in the proportion of eyes achieving an uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better (P=0.377), gaining one line or more (P=0.05), postoperative cylinder (P=0.40), vertical coma (P=0.593) and horizontal coma (P=0.957). After TG ablation, the proportion of the patients' eyes of which postoperative refraction is within ±0.5 diopter of the target refraction was significantly higher than that undergoes WFO (P=0.003). As opposed to the WFO group, manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE; P=0.000) was lower, and UCVA (P=0.005) was better in the TG group. The higher-order aberrations (HOAs; P=0.000), spherical aberration (P=0.000) and coma (P=0.000) were significantly lower in TG group. The cumulative Meta-analysis illustrated that the proportion of eyes achieving UCVA of 20/20 or better, postoperative refraction within ±0.5 diopter, and MRSE has steady between the two groups.
Conclusion: Both TG-LASIK and WFO-LASIK are safe, effective, and predictable for correcting myopia. TG-LASIK may produce fewer aberration and is more precise than WFO-LASIK.
Keywords: Meta-analysis; corneal topography; laser in situ keratomileusis; myopia; wavefront aberration.
International Journal of Ophthalmology Press.