Comparison of two procedures: photorefractive keratectomy versus laser in situ keratomileusis for low to moderate myopia

Jpn J Ophthalmol. Sep-Oct 2001;45(5):487-91. doi: 10.1016/s0021-5155(01)00406-3.


Purpose: A prospective study was conducted to compare the effectiveness, safety, and stability of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for correction of low to moderate myopia.

Methods: Forty-five patients with a manifest refraction (PRK, -4.54 +/- 0.80; LASIK, -4.82 +/- 1.10) from -1.50 to -6.00 diopters (D) were treated and followed-up for 6 months. In each case, 1 eye received PRK and the other LASIK. The first eye treated, and the surgical method used in the first eye, were randomized. Uncorrected and corrected visual acuity, manifest refraction, corneal haze, and topographic analysis of ablation decentration were examined.

Results: The uncorrected visual acuity was 20/20 or better in 35 PRK eyes (77.8%) and 28 LASIK eyes (62.2%) at 6 months (P =.107). At 6 months, 28 eyes (62.2%) that received PRK showed a spherical equivalent of within +/-0.5 D as compared with 24 eyes (53.4%) that received LASIK (P =.393). The amount of ablation decentration was 0.37 +/- 0.25 mm in PRK eyes and 0.49 +/- 0.38 mm in LASIK eyes at 3 months (P =.36).

Conclusions: In our study, PRK and LASIK were found to be similarly effective and predictive of correction in low to moderate myopia. PRK has the advantage of less ablation decentration and is safer than LASIK, so we recommend PRK for eyes with low to moderate myopia.

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial
  • Comparative Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial

MeSH terms

  • Cornea / surgery*
  • Female
  • Follow-Up Studies
  • Humans
  • Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ / methods*
  • Lasers, Excimer
  • Male
  • Myopia / surgery*
  • Photorefractive Keratectomy / methods*
  • Prospective Studies
  • Safety
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Visual Acuity