ArticleBiomedical engineering online2025
Comparative corneal biomechanical changes after FS-LASIK and orthokeratology.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 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.
- Underestimation of Intraocular Pressure (IOP) After LASIK and PRK: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate changes in corneal biomechanical properties after femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and orthokeratology (Ortho-K).
methodsIn this retrospective comparative study, patients were divided into an Ortho-K group (37 eyes) and a LASIK group (35 eyes) based on whether they underwent Ortho-K correction or FS-LASIK surgery. Keratometry measurement (Km), spherical equivalent (SE), non-contact tonometry (NCT), central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal hysteresis (CH), and corneal resistance factor (CRF) were assessed at baseline and 1 month after treatment (Ortho-K or LASIK).
resultsNo significant baseline differences existed between the two groups. After correction, the LASIK group showed significantly lower values in Km, SE, CCT, NCT, CH, and CRF compared to the Ortho-K group (all P < 0.05). Intragroup comparisons revealed significant postoperative reductions in the LASIK group for CCT (from 543.37 ± 36.75 µm to 476.80 ± 38.75 µm, P < 0.001), CH (from 10.68 ± 1.46 mmHg to 9.03 ± 1.52 mmHg, P < 0.001), and CRF (from 10.18 ± 1.89 mmHg to 7.68 ± 1.89 mmHg, P < 0.001). In the Ortho-K group, CH and CRF decreased significantly (CH: 10.98 ± 1.43 to 9.81 ± 1.19 mmHg, P = 0.005; CRF: 10.77 ± 1.70 to 9.42 ± 1.52 mmHg, P < 0.001), but CCT change was insignificant. Analysis of ORA signals confirmed a greater biomechanical impact after LASIK, with significant reductions in both P1 and P2 (both P < 0.001), compared to only a P1 reduction in the Ortho-K group (P = 0.033).
conclusionsAlthough both FS-LASIK and Ortho-K reduce CH and CRF values as measured by the ORA, their clinical implications are fundamentally different. The changes induced by FS-LASIK represent a true biomechanical weakening of the cornea, whereas the reductions observed after Ortho-K are primarily measurement artifacts caused by alterations in corneal curvature. Consequently, a more comprehensive approach is required for accurately assessing the corneal biomechanical status following Ortho-K.
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.