Dataset Information

Wavefront-guided versus non-wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy for myopia: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: To compare the efficacy, predictability, safety, and induced higher-order aberrations (HOAs) between wavefront-guided and non-wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMED, and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trials. Trials meeting the selection criteria were quality appraised, and data was extracted by 2 independent authors. Measures of association were pooled quantitatively using meta-analytical methods. Comparisons between wavefront-guided and non-wavefront-guided ablations were made as pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences. The pooled ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for efficacy, safety, and predictability. The weighted mean differences and 95% CIs were used to compare induced HOAs.The study covered five trials involving 298 eyes. After wavefront-guided PRK, the pooled OR of achieving an uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 (efficacy) was 1.18 (95% CI, 0.53-2.60; p?=?0.69), the pooled OR of achieving a result within ±0.50 diopter of the intended target (predictability) was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.40-1.84; p?=?0.70). No study reported a loss of 2 or more lines of Snellen acuity (safety) with either modality. In eyes with wavefront-guided PRK, the postoperative trefoil aberrations (mean difference -0.02; 95% CI, -0.03 to -0.00; p?=?0.03) were significantly lower. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the postoperative total HOAs (mean difference -0.04; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.14; p?=?0.63), spherical (mean difference 0.00; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.09; p?=?0.93), and coma (mean difference -0.06; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.03; p?=?0.20) aberrations.According to the meta-analysis, wavefront-guided PRK offered no advantage in efficacy, predictability, or safety measures over non-wavefront-guided PRK, although it may have induced fewer trefoil aberrations.

SUBMITTER: Kobashi H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4114780 | biostudies-other | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Wavefront-guided versus non-wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy for myopia: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Kobashi Hidenaga H Kamiya Kazutaka K Hoshi Keika K Igarashi Akihito A Shimizu Kimiya K

PloS one 20140729 7

<h4>Purpose</h4>To compare the efficacy, predictability, safety, and induced higher-order aberrations (HOAs) between wavefront-guided and non-wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).<h4>Methods</h4>The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMED, and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trials. Trials meeting the selection criteria were quality appraised, and data was extracted by 2 independent authors. Measures of association were pooled quantitatively using meta ...[more]

PMID: 25072409

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose of the studyTo compare visual outcome, higher order aberrations (HOAs) of topography guided and Q value adjusted ablation in the fellow eye of patients undergoing photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism.MethodsProspective randomized controlled interventional clinical study. The eyes of 52 patients undergoing PRK for myopia and astigmatism were included, that is, 104 eyes in total. In each patient, eyes were randomly allocated to group I: one eye received topography guided PRK using Contoura ablation software, or group II: the other eye received Q value adjusted PRK using Custom Q ablation software.Follow-upSix months.ResultsAt the end of 6 months, LogMAR UDVA was -0.04 ± 0.12 and -0.05 ± 0.11 (p = 0.688), while LogMAR CDVA was -0.06 ± 0.09 and -0.06 ± 0.1 in group I and group II, respectively (p = 0.972). Both groups showed a progressive oblate shift with time. This oblate shift was insignificantly less in group I by Topolyzer at 6mm, 15° and 30° at 6 months (p = 0.102, p = 0.138, p = 0.245, respectively). Topolyzer identified a significant difference between the change in coma and trefoil in both groups at 6 months (p<0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). This was caused by the significant worsening of coma in group II (p<0.001) and the significant improvement of trefoil in group I (p = 0.007). No significant difference was found between groups in the change of ISV or ABR (p = 0.955 and 0.982, respectively). Ablation depth is a significant predictor of ΔQ at 6mm, 15° and 30° (p = 0.009, 0.039 and 0, respectively). No significant difference was found in the Strehl ratio or contrast sensitivity, although they were insignificantly better in group I (p = 0.785 and p = 0.745, respectively).ConclusionTG PRK and CQ PRK yielded similar results regarding UDVA, CDVA, MRSE, safety, predictability and contrast sensitivity. Both groups showed a progressive oblate shift, which was less in the TG group but the difference was statistically insignificant. TG PRK showed significantly improved trefoil HOA as compared to CQ PRK.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common compressive neuropathy of the median nerve. The efficacy and safety of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release remain controversial. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:The purpose of this study was to determine whether endoscopic compared with open carpal tunnel release provides better symptom relief, validated outcome scores, short- and long-term strength, and/or digital sensibility; entails a differential risk of complications such as nerve injury, scar tenderness, pillar pain, and reoperation; allows an earlier return to work; and takes less operative time. METHODS:The English-language literature was searched using MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials that compared endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release were included in the meta-analysis. Methodologic quality was assessed with the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Symptom relief, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) scores, strength, digital sensibility, complications, reoperation, interval to return to work, and operative time were analyzed. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials containing 1859 hands were included. RESULTS:Endoscopically treated patients showed similar symptom relief and BCTQ scores; better early recovery of grip strength (mean difference [MD], 3.03 kg [0.08-5.98]; p = 0.04) and pinch strength (MD, 0.77 kg [0.33-1.22]; p < 0.001) but no advantage after 6 months; lower risk of scar tenderness (risk ratio [RR], 0.53 [0.35-0.82]; p = 0.005); higher risk of nerve injury (RR, 2.84 [1.08-7.46]; p = 0.03), most of which were transient neurapraxias. Similar risk of pillar pain and reoperation; an earlier return to work (MD, -8.73 days [-12.82 to -4.65]; p < 0.001); and reduced operative time (MD, -4.81 minutes [-9.23 to -0.39]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:High-level evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that endoscopic release allows earlier return to work and improved strength during the early postoperative period. Results at 6 months or later are similar according to current data except that patients undergoing endoscopic release are at greater risk of nerve injury and lower risk of scar tenderness compared with open release. While endoscopic release may appeal to patients who require an early return to work and activities, surgeons should be cognizant of its elevated incidence of transient nerve injury amid its similar overall efficacy to open carpal tunnel release. Additional research is required to define the learning curve of endoscopic release and clarify the influence of surgeon volume on its safety.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough laparoscopic surgery has been available for a long time and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed universally, it is still not clear whether open appendectomy (OA) or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the most appropriate surgical approach to acute appendicitis. The purpose of this work is to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of laparoscopic and conventional "open" appendectomy by means of a meta-analysis.MethodsA meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials published in English that compared LA and OA in adults and children between 1990 and 2009. Calculations were made of the effect sizes of: operating time, postoperative length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, resumption of diet, complications rates, and conversion to open surgery. The effect sizes were then pooled by a fixed or random-effects model.ResultsForty-four randomized controlled trials with 5292 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Operating time was 12.35 min longer for LA (95% CI: 7.99 to 16.72, p < 0.00001). Hospital stay after LA was 0.60 days shorter (95% CI: -0.85 to -0.36, p < 0.00001). Patients returned to their normal activity 4.52 days earlier after LA (95% CI: -5.95 to -3.10, p < 0.00001), and resumed their diet 0.34 days earlier(95% CI: -0.46 to -0.21, p < 0.00001). Pain after LA on the first postoperative day was significantly less (p = 0.008). The overall conversion rate from LA to OA was 9.51%. With regard to the rate of complications, wound infection after LA was definitely reduced (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59, p < 0.00001), while postoperative ileus was not significantly reduced(OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.47, p = 0.71). However, intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), intraoperative bleeding and urinary tract infection (UIT) after LA, occurred slightly more frequently(OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.43, p = 0.05; OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.54 to 4.48, p = 0.41; OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.58 to 5.29, p = 0.32).ConclusionLA provides considerable benefits over OA, including a shorter length of hospital stay, less postoperative pain, earlier postoperative recovery, and a lower complication rate. Furthermore, over the study period it was obvious that there had been a trend toward fewer differences in operating time for the two procedures. Although LA was associated with a slight increase in the incidence of IAA, intraoperative bleeding and UIT, it is a safe procedure. It may be that the widespread use of LA is due to its better therapeutic effect.

Project description:It is unclear whether or not ultrasound-guided cannulation (UGC) of the femoral artery is superior to the standard approach (SA) in reducing vascular complications and improving access success. We sought to compare procedural and clinical outcomes of femoral UGC versus SA in patients undergoing percutaneous cardiovascular intervention (PCvI). We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and web sources for randomized trials comparing UGC versus SA. We estimated risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Primary efficacy endpoint was the success rate at the first attempt, while secondary efficacy endpoints were access time and number of attempts. Primary safety endpoints were the rates of vascular complications, while secondary endpoints were major bleeding, as well as access site hematoma, venepuncture, pseudoaneurysms and retroperitoneal hematoma. This meta-analysis has been registered on Centre for Open Science (OSF) (osf.io/fy82e). Seven trials were included, randomizing 3180 patients to UGC (n = 1564) or SA (n = 1616). Efficacy between UGC and SA was the main metric assessed in most of the trials, in which one third of the enrolled patients underwent interventional procedures. The success rate of the first attempt was significantly higher with UGC compared to SA, (82.0% vs. 58.7%; RR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.57; p < 0.0001; I2 = 88%). Time to access and number of attempts were significantly reduced with UGC compared to SA (SMD: -0.19; 95% CI: -0.28 to -0.10; p < 0.0001; I2 = 22%) and (SMD: -0.40; 95% CI: -0.58 to -0.21; p < 0.0001; I2 = 82%), respectively. Compared with SA, use of UGC was associated with a significant reduction in vascular complications (1.3% vs. 3.0%; RR: 0.48; CI 95%: 0.25 to 0.91; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%) and access-site hematoma (1.2% vs. 3.3%; RR: 0.41; CI 95%: 0.20 to 0.83; p = 0.01; I2 = 27%), but there were non-significant differences in major bleeding (0.7% vs. 1.4%; RR: 0.57; CI 95%: 0.24 to 1.32; p = 0.19; I2 = 0%). Rates of venepuncture were lower with UGC (3.6% vs. 12.1%; RR: 0.32; CI 95%: 0.20 to 0.52; p < 0.00001; I2 = 55%). This study, which included all available data to date, demonstrated that, compared to a standard approach, ultrasound-guided cannulation of the femoral artery is associated with lower access-related complications and higher efficacy rates. These results could be of great clinical relevance especially in the femoral cannulation of high risk patients.

Dataset Information

Wavefront-guided versus non-wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy for myopia: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Wavefront-guided versus non-wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy for myopia: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure