Trial reportBMC ophthalmology2025
Comparison of visual quality and optical zones after TransPRK, SMILE, and FS-LASIK myopia correction procedures.
Trial report in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative clinical outcomes of SMILE, femtosecond LASIK, and transepithelial PRK: a multicenter Iraqi study.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransPRK, SMILE, and FS-LASIK are widely used surgical procedures for myopia correction, but differences in postoperative visual quality and optical zone design remain a subject of clinical interest. This study aimed to compare visual outcomes, higher-order aberrations (HOAs), contrast sensitivity, optical zone diameter, and corneal biomechanics among these three techniques.
methodsIn this prospective cohort study, 82 patients (164 eyes) with myopia were randomly assigned to undergo TransPRK (n = 56 eyes), SMILE (n = 52 eyes), or FS-LASIK (n = 56 eyes). All procedures were performed at a single center, and patients were followed for six months postoperatively. Outcome measures included uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), HOAs, contrast sensitivity under both bright and dark conditions, optical zone diameter, refractive error, corneal biomechanical parameters (corneal hysteresis and resistance factor), and subjective symptoms such as nighttime glare and halos. Statistical analysis involved ANOVA and chi-square tests.
resultsAt six months, all groups achieved comparable UCVA (≥ 96% achieving ≥ 1.0), but the TransPRK group demonstrated significantly lower total HOAs (0.25 ± 0.07 μm) and spherical aberrations (+ 0.05 ± 0.02 μm) than SMILE and FS-LASIK (P < 0.001). TransPRK also showed superior contrast sensitivity, particularly in low-light conditions (6 cpd: 1.05 ± 0.12 log units, P < 0.001). All techniques demonstrated comparable efficacy (indices > 1.0), with non-significant trends favoring SMILE for UCVA (98.08%) and TransPRK for refractive stability (-0.12 ± 0.25D; all P > 0.05). The SMILE group preserved the best corneal biomechanics (CH: 10.1 ± 1.1 mmHg; CRF: 10.5 ± 1.3 mmHg), while FS-LASIK had the highest incidence of nighttime glare (26.8%) and halos (23.2%) (P < 0.05).
conclusionsTransPRK has good postoperative visual quality, but its advantages may be mediated by its larger optical zone design. In terms of night vision performance, SMILE surgery can effectively preserve the biomechanical properties of the cornea, while FS-LASIK achieved comparable 6-month acuity; we did not assess time-to-recovery. Selection of surgical modality should be individualized based on patient-specific anatomical and lifestyle factors.
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.