ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2017
Comparison of visual acuity, refractive outcomes, and satisfaction between LASIK performed with a microkeratome and a femto laser.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Femtosecond LASIK for the correction of low and high myopic astigmatism.International ophthalmology · 2022Observational
- Customized eye modeling for optical quality assessment in myopic femto-LASIK surgery.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Long Term Follow-Up Safety and Effectiveness of Myopia Refractive Surgery.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Paired eye-control study of unilateral opaque bubble layer in femtosecond laser assisted laserInternational journal of ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Visual and Refractive Outcomes of Topography-guided Laser-assisted In Situ Keratomileusis in Virgin Eyes.Cureus · 2018Article
- Article
- Scheimpflug Topography Oriented Adequate Repositioning of a Misaligned Free Flap after Laser in situ Keratomileusis.Case reports in ophthalmologyArticle
- Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes of Laser In Situ Keratomileusis and Small-Incision Lenticule Extraction: A Review.Asia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa.)Review
- Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking Combined with an Artiflex Iris-Fixated Anterior Chamber Phakic Intraocular Lens Implantation in a Patient with Progressive Keratoconus.Case reports in ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare refractive outcomes, visual acuities, and satisfaction of patients between those treated with laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) using a Hansatome microkeratome (HM) and femto-assisted laser (FAL).
methodsThis was a retrospective analysis of 1,366 eyes in 687 patients who underwent LASIK with an HM (n=1,137) and an FAL (n=229) at the two centers of Hashmanis Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan. Refractive outcomes, including sphere, cylinder, and spherical equivalent in diopters (D), and visual acuities were assessed both preoperatively and at 1 month follow-up. Patient satisfaction was gauged by contacting the patient at the time of chart review.
resultsThe postoperative median sphere, cylinder, and spherical equivalent values for those treated with FAL were 0.3±0.7 (-5.5-1.8), -0.5±0.6 (-5.0-1.0), and 0.0±0.7 (-6.0-1.6), respectively. For the HM arm, they were 0.0±1.28 (-10.8-6.8), -0.5±0.5 (-4.5-1.5), and -0.3±1.3 (-11.6-6.8), respectively. All preoperative values were statistically insignificant between the groups, while postoperative values were significant with
conclusionOur large retrospective analysis of eyes that have undergone LASIK using HM and FAL shows superior refractive outcomes in the latter, with special regard to procedural efficacy and predictability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.