| - | Preoperative | Postoperative | - | |||||||||||
| LASIK | SMILE | LASIK | SMLE | |||||||||||
| Study | Design | n | CH [mmHg] | CRF [mmHg] | n | CH [mmHg] | CRF [mmHg] | CH [mmHg] | CRF [mmHg] | CH [mmHg] | CRF [mmHg] | Conclusion | ||
| Xia et al. 2016 [36] | Pro com | 59 | 10.76 ± 1.67 | 10.60 ± 1.99 | 69 | 10.99 ± 1.65 | 11.26 ± 1.94 | 1W: 7.80 ±1.57 1M: 7.76 ±1.21 3M: 8.06 ±1.06 6M: 7.97 ±1.14 |
1W: 7.14 ±1.94 1M: 6.51 ±1.33 3M: 6.53 ±1.38 6M: 6.31 ±1.41 |
1W: 7.82 ±1.32 1M: 8.47 ±1.23 3M: 8.35 ±1.08 6M: 8.58 ±1.40 |
1W: 7.57 ±1.44 1M: 7.09 ±1.53 3M: 6.51 ±1.27 6M: 7.05 ±1.65 |
A significant reduction was seen in CH and CRF in both groups. At 6 months, no difference were seen in CH between groups (p=0.052), while the difference in CRF was significant (p=0.023) | ||
| Li et al. 2016[37] | Re com | 96 | 10.32 | 10.74 | 97 | 10.16 | 10.41 | 1M: 7.48 3M: 7.74 6M: 7.84 |
1M: 6.93 3M: 6.70 6M: 6.58 |
1M: 7.82 3M: 7.99 6M: 7.94 |
1M: 7.06 3M: 6.82 6M: 6.83 |
ΔCRF and ΔCH per removed or ablated tissue were higher in LASIK than in SMILE. ** | ||
| Osman et al. 2016[38] | Re com | 25 | 11.59±1.86 | 11.00 ± 1.89 | 25 | 12.03 ± 1.76 | 11.42 ± 1.68 | 1M: 8.46±1.76 | 1M: 7.45±2.39 | 1M: 9.99±1.76 | 1M: 9.43±1.55 | The average reduction in CH and CRF (in percentage) was significantly larger after LASIK than SMILE at one month (p<0.001) | ||
| Zhang et al. 2016[39] | Pro com | 80 | 10.83±1.60 | 10.71 ± 1.74 | 80 | 10.64 ± 1.09 | 10.54 ± 1.53 | 24H: 7.98±1.17 2W: 8.07±1.37 1M: 8.17±1.31 3M: 8.00±1.32 | 24H: 6.85±1.42 2W: 6.87±1.45 1M: 6.88±1.46 3M: 6.82±1.40 | 24H: 7.91±1.06 2W: 7.94±1.08 1M: 8.00±0.99 3M: 7.91±0.92 | 24H: 6.88±1.47 2W: 7.01±1.38 1M: 7.08±1.34 3M: 7.07±1.27 | ΔCH and ΔCRF did not differ between WF-guided LASIK and SMILE at any postoperative time points | ||
| Pedersen et al. 2015[26] | Re com | 35 | n/a | n/a | 29 | n/a | n/a | 37M: 8.58±0.15 | 37M: 7.12±0.18 | 15M: 8.56±0.19 | 15M: 7.12±0.23 | Reported estimated marginal means (36.7 years, 473μm, IOPcc 13.0mmHg). No significant differences in CH and CRF between LASIK and SMILE | ||
| Wang et al. (2016) [40] | Re com | 56 | 10.85 ±1.19 | 10.62 ±1.81 | 50 | 10.52 ±1.71 | 10.07 ±1.49 | 6M: 8.43±1.75 12M: 8.31±1.62 |
6M: 7.53 ±1.81 12M: 7.29 ±1.76 |
6M: 7.85±1.81 12M: 7.97±2.05 |
6M: 7.54±1.66 12M: 7.83±1.64 |
Corneal biomechanical changes were similar after the two procedures, although FS-LASIK demonstrated a greater reduction in CRF. | ||
| Wu & Wang (2015) [41] | Re com | 75 | 10.09±1.38 | 10.57±1.64 | 75 | 10.16±1.30 | 10.39±1.52 | 3M: 7.86±1.03 | M3: 6.77±1.13 | M3: 8.30±1.04 | M3: 7.25±1.31 | Postoperative CH and CRF were significantly higher after SMILE than after FS-LASIK (p<0.015) | ||
| Wang et al. 2014[42] | pro com | 79 | High myopia: 10.15±0.27 Low myopia: 10.45±0.19 |
High myopia: 10.15±0.31 Low myopia: 10.07±0.20 |
187 | High myopia: 10.49 ± 0.19 Low myopia: 10.56 ± 0.17 |
High myopia: 10.86 ± 0.20 Low myopia: 10.48 ± 0.17 |
1W: n/a * 1M: n/a * 3M: n/a * |
1W: n/a * 1M: n/a * 3M: n/a * |
1W: n/a * 1M: n/a * 3M: n/a * |
1W: n/a * 1M: n/a * 3M: n/a * |
High myopia: CH and CRF decreased significantly more after LASIK than after SMILE (p<0.014). Low myopia: No significant difference between LASIK and SMILE | ||
| Wu et al. 2014[43] | Pro com | 40 | n/a | n/a | 40 | n/a | n/a | 1W: n/a 3M: 8.17±0.71 6M: 8.11±0.66 |
1W: 7.21±0.83 1M: 7.29±0.75 6M: 6.94±0.66 | 1w: n/a 3M: 8.64±1.03 6M: 8.59±1.00 |
1W: 7.89±1.31 1M: 7.98±1.24 6M: 7.78±1.03 | Average ΔCRF was significantly larger after LASIK than SMILE at six months (p=0.025). Average ΔCH was comparable at any time points (p=0.083) | ||
|
Agca et al. 2014 [44] |
RCT paired | 30 | 11.00±1.53 | 10.76±1.45 | 30 | 10.89±1.79 | 10.73±1.71 | 1M: 8.80±1.51 6M: 9.02±1.27 | 1M: 7.98±1.58 6M: 8.07±1.26 | 1M: 8.70±1.31 6M: 8.95±1.47 | 1M: 7.89±1.57 6M: 7.77±1.37 | Average ΔCH and ΔCRF was similar between LASIK and SMILE at one and six months follow up. The difference in CH and CRF between one and six months was comparable in LASIK and SMILE | ||