Barcelona 2015 Programme Registration Glaucoma Day 2015 Exhibition Virtual Exhibition Satellite Meetings Hotel Booking Star Alliance

Take a look inside the London 2014 Congress


Then register to join us
in Barcelona!

PRK might be better for extreme myopia than LASIK

Search Abstracts by author or title
(results will display both Free Papers & Poster)

Session Details

Session Title: Photoablation Outcomes II

Session Date/Time: Wednesday 09/09/2015 | 08:00-09:30

Paper Time: 09:00

Venue: Room 1

First Author: : K.Termote CANADA

Co Author(s): :    S. Holland   D. Lin                 

Abstract Details


To compare one-year outcomes of extremely myopic patients between PRK and LASIK.


Pacific Laser Eye Centre, Vancouver, Canada


We present a retrospective, consecutive case series and chart review of 251 eyes with more than -10.00D spherical equivalent (SE) preoperatively that underwent laser refractive surgery using Allegretto Wavelight laser. 198 eyes were treated via transepithelial PRK and 53 were treated via LASIK. One year postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), manifest refraction predictability and complications were evaluated and compared.


36% (72/198) PRK patients showed UCVA ≥20/20 compared to 23% (12/53) LASIK patients. 59% (116/198) PRK patients had no change in BSCVA compared to 64% (34/53) LASIK patients, 14% of patients in both groups lost one line (28/198 and 7/53 respectively). 64% (127/198) PRK patients showed postoperative SE +/- 0.50D compared to 60% (32/53) LASIK patients. Mild complications occurred such as temporary loss of vision due to punctate keratopathy on 4% (7/198) PRK patients compared to 23% (12/53) LASIK patients, and early haze formation on 3% (5/198) PRK patients compared to 0% (0/53) LASIK patients.


In extreme myopia, more patients achieved 20/20 UCVA with PRK than LASIK. However this result was not significant. PRK for extreme myopia appears to be non-inferior to LASIK with potentially higher safety.

Financial Interest:

One of the authors receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a competing company

Back to previous