Femtosecond laser versus mechanical microkeratome laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia: Metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials.

Purpose To examine differences in efficacy, accuracy, safety, and changes in aberrations between femtosecond and mechanical microkeratome laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia. Setting Department of Ophthalmology, Shanghai First People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China. Design Evidence-based manuscript. Methods Data sources, including PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, were searched to identify potentially relevant prospective randomized controlled trials. Primary outcome measures were efficacy (uncorrected distance visual acuity ≥20/20), accuracy (±0.50 diopter mean spherical equivalent), and safety (loss of ≥2 lines of corrected distance visual acuity). Aberrations and postoperative complications were secondary outcomes. Results Seven prospective randomized controlled trials describing a total of 577 eyes with myopia were included in this metaanalysis. At 6 months or more follow-up, no significant differences were found in the efficacy (odds ratio [OR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 3.42; P =.78), accuracy (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 0.68 to 4.20; P =.26), or safety (OR, 7.37; 95% CI, 0.37 to 147.61; P =.19). In eyes that had femtosecond LASIK, the postoperative total aberrations (mean difference −0.03 μm; 95% CI, −0.05 to −0.01; P =.002) and spherical aberrations (mean difference −0.02 μm; 95% CI, −0.03 to −0.01; P Conclusions According to the metaanalysis, femtosecond LASIK did not have an advantage in efficacy, accuracy, and safety measures over mechanical microkeratome LASIK in the early and midterm follow-up, although it might induce fewer aberrations. Financial Disclosure Drs. Zhang, Jin, Suo, Patel, and Montes-Mico have no financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned. Additional disclosures are found in the footnotes.