摘要
AIM： To identify possible differences of efficacy, safety predictability, higher-order aberrations and cornea biomechnical parameters after small-incision lenticule extraction（SMILE） and femtosecond lenticule extraction（FLEx）.· METHODS： A systematic literature retrieval was conducted in Medline,Embase and the Cochrane Library up to October, 2015. The included studies were subject to a Meta-analysis. Comparison between SMILE and FLEx was measured as pooled odds ratio（OR） or weighted mean differences（WMD）. Of 95% confidence intervals（CI） were used to analyze data.·RESULTS： A total of seven studies were included Firstly, there were no differences in uncorrected distance visual acuity（UDVA） 20/20 or better（OR, 1.37; 95% CI0.69 to 2.69; P =0.37） and log MAR UDVA（WMD,-0.02;95% CI,-0.05 to 0.01; P =0.17） after SMILE versus FLEx We found no differences in corrected distance visua acuity（CDVA） unchanged（OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.46 to 2.11;P =0.97） and log MAR CDVA（WMD,-0.00; 95% CI,-0.01 to 0.01; P =0.90） either. Secondly, we found no differences in refraction within ±1.00 D（OR, 0.98; 95% CI0.13 to 7.28; P =0.99） and ±0.50 D（OR, 1.62; 95% CI0.62 to 4.28; P =0.33） of target postoperatively. Thirdly for higher-order aberrations, we found no differences in the total higher-order aberrations（WMD,-0.04; 95%CI,-0.09 to 0.01;P =0.14）, coma（WMD,-0.04; 95% CI,-0.09 to 0.01; P =0.11）, spherical（WMD, 0.01; 95% CI,-0.02 to0.03; P =0.60） and trefoil（WMD,-0.00; 95% CI,-0.04 to0.03; P =0.76）. Furthermore, for corneal biomechanica parameters, we also found no differences（WMD, 0.08;95% CI,-0.17 to 0.33; P =0.54） after SMILE versus FLEx.·CONCLUSION： There are no statistically differences in efficacy, safety, predictability, higher-order aberrations and corneal biomechnical parameters postoperative between SMILE and FLEx.
AIM： To identify possible differences of efficacy, safety predictability, higher-order aberrations and cornea biomechnical parameters after small-incision lenticule extraction（SMILE） and femtosecond lenticule extraction（FLEx）.· METHODS： A systematic literature retrieval was conducted in Medline,Embase and the Cochrane Library up to October, 2015. The included studies were subject to a Meta-analysis. Comparison between SMILE and FLEx was measured as pooled odds ratio（OR） or weighted mean differences（WMD）. Of 95% confidence intervals（CI） were used to analyze data.·RESULTS： A total of seven studies were included Firstly, there were no differences in uncorrected distance visual acuity（UDVA） 20/20 or better（OR, 1.37; 95% CI0.69 to 2.69; P =0.37） and log MAR UDVA（WMD,-0.02;95% CI,-0.05 to 0.01; P =0.17） after SMILE versus FLEx We found no differences in corrected distance visua acuity（CDVA） unchanged（OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.46 to 2.11;P =0.97） and log MAR CDVA（WMD,-0.00; 95% CI,-0.01 to 0.01; P =0.90） either. Secondly, we found no differences in refraction within ±1.00 D（OR, 0.98; 95% CI0.13 to 7.28; P =0.99） and ±0.50 D（OR, 1.62; 95% CI0.62 to 4.28; P =0.33） of target postoperatively. Thirdly for higher-order aberrations, we found no differences in the total higher-order aberrations（WMD,-0.04; 95%CI,-0.09 to 0.01;P =0.14）, coma（WMD,-0.04; 95% CI,-0.09 to 0.01; P =0.11）, spherical（WMD, 0.01; 95% CI,-0.02 to0.03; P =0.60） and trefoil（WMD,-0.00; 95% CI,-0.04 to0.03; P =0.76）. Furthermore, for corneal biomechanica parameters, we also found no differences（WMD, 0.08;95% CI,-0.17 to 0.33; P =0.54） after SMILE versus FLEx.·CONCLUSION： There are no statistically differences in efficacy, safety, predictability, higher-order aberrations and corneal biomechnical parameters postoperative between SMILE and FLEx.
