Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: To compare long-term refractive and visual outcomes of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and laser surface ablation in eyes with corneas thinner than 470 μm. SETTING: Private clinics, Spain. DESIGN: Comparative case series. METHODS: The study comprised eyes with myopic error and corneas thinner than 470 μm that had at least 2.9 years of postoperative follow-up between September 2001 and June 2007. The main outcome measures were safety, efficacy, predictability, and complications. RESULTS: The mean central corneal thickness was 462.0 μm (range 440 to 469 μm) in the LASIK group (n = 40) and 458.1 μm (range 420 to 469 μm) in the laser surface ablation group (n = 88). All eyes had normal preoperative topography. In the LASIK group after a mean follow-up of 5.1 years ± 1.5 (SD), the safety index was 1.07, efficacy was 0.99, and predictability (± 1.00 diopter [D]) was 0.93. In the laser surface ablation group after a mean follow-up of 4.8 ± 1.3 years, the safety index was 1.01, efficacy was 0.93, and predictability (± 1.00 D) was 0.92. The mean residual corneal bed thickness in all eyes was 345 ± 25 μm (range 270 to 399 μm). No major complications occurred. The safety index was better in the LASIK group than in the laser surface ablation group. CONCLUSION: Both techniques were effective, safe, and predictable in eyes with corneas thinner than 470 μm, normal preoperative topography, and a residual corneal bed thickness greater than 250 μm.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Djodeyre et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: