Cochrane · systematic review · CD012687
Wavefront excimer laser refractive surgery for adults with refractive errors
Li, S-M, Kang, M-T, Wang, N-L, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
Eyes and VisionAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
21
current version
GRADE rated
15
No studies
6
Included studies
NR
No studies 6 · 28.6%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 6 · 28.6%Low 9 · 42.9%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Wavefront procedures compared to conventional procedures for adults with refractive errors
Population: Adults with refractive errors
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better post‐treatment:12 months ‐ Procedure: PRK Wavefront procedures vs conventional procedures | RR 1.03 [0.86, 1.24] | 1 study · 70 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better post‐treatment:12 months ‐ Procedure: LASIK Wavefront procedures vs conventional procedures | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of eyes that had lost 1 or more lines of best spectacle‐corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) posttreatment:12 months ‐ Procedure PRK Wavefront procedures vs conventional procedures | RR 0.94 [0.81, 1.09] | 1 study · 70 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of eyes within ± 0.50 diopters (D) of target refraction: 12 months ‐ Procedure PRK Wavefront procedures vs conventional procedures | RR 1.03 [0.86, 1.24] | 1 study · 70 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Proportion of eyes within ± 0.50 diopters (D) of target refraction: 12 months ‐ Procedure LASIK Wavefront procedures vs conventional procedures | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mean refractive error expressed as mean spherical equivalent post‐treatment:12 months ‐ Procedure PRK Wavefront procedures vs conventional procedures | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Proportion of eyes that had lost 1 or more lines of best spectacle‐corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) posttreatment‐procedure LASIK; Mean higher‐order aberrations (HOAs) post‐treatment, measured by machine with wavefront sensor; proportion of eyes wi... Wavefront procedures vs conventional procedures | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Wavefront‐optimized procedures compared to wavefront‐guided procedures for adults with refractive errors
Population: Adults with refractive errors
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better post‐treatment:12 months ‐ overall estimate Wavefront‐optimized procedures vs wavefront‐guided procedures | RR 1 [0.99, 1.02] | 5 studies · 618 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Proportion of eyes that had lost 1 or more lines of best spectacle‐corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) post‐treatment:12 months ‐ overall estimate Wavefront‐optimized procedures vs wavefront‐guided procedures | RR 0.99 [0.96, 1.02] | 5 studies · 622 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Proportion of eyes within ± 0.50 diopters (D) of target refraction post‐treatment:12 months ‐ overall estimate Wavefront‐optimized procedures vs wavefront‐guided procedures | RR 1.02 [0.95, 1.09] | 4 studies · 480 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mean refractive error expressed as mean spherical equivalent post‐treatment:12 months ‐ Procedure PRK Wavefront‐optimized procedures vs wavefront‐guided procedures | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 334 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mean refractive error expressed as mean spherical equivalent post‐treatment:12 months ‐ Procedure LASIK Wavefront‐optimized procedures vs wavefront‐guided procedures | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 472 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mean higher‐order aberrations (HOAs) post‐treatment, measured by machine with wavefront sensor: 12 months ‐ overall estimate Wavefront‐optimized procedures vs wavefront‐guided procedures | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 622 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Proportion of eyes with significant visual loss (loss of 2 or more lines from pretreatment BSCVA): 12 months Wavefront‐optimized procedures vs wavefront‐guided procedures | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Wavefront‐guided LASIK compared to wavefront‐guided PRK for adults with refractive errors
Population: Adults with refractive errors
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better post‐treatment. ‐ 12 months Wavefront‐guided LASIK vs wavefront‐guided PRK | RR 1.03 [0.93, 1.15] | 1 study · 66 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of eyes that had lost 1 or more lines of best spectacle‐corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) posttreatment. ‐ 12 months Wavefront‐guided LASIK vs wavefront‐guided PRK | RR 1.03 [0.93, 1.15] | 1 study · 66 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of eyes within ± 0.50 diopters (D) of target refraction post‐treatment. ‐ 12 months Wavefront‐guided LASIK vs wavefront‐guided PRK | RR 0.97 [0.82, 1.14] | 1 study · 66 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mean refractive error expressed as mean spherical equivalent post‐treatment. ‐ 12 months Wavefront‐guided LASIK vs wavefront‐guided PRK | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 66 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mean higher‐order aberrations (HOAs) post‐treatment, measured by machine with wavefront sensor ‐ 12 months Wavefront‐guided LASIK vs wavefront‐guided PRK | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 66 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of eyes with significant visual loss (loss of 2 or more lines from pretreatment BSCVA): 12 months Wavefront‐guided LASIK vs wavefront‐guided PRK | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of eyes with optical side effects, such as glare and halo: 12 months Wavefront‐guided LASIK vs wavefront‐guided PRK | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |