This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the studies comparing transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (TransPRK) to LASIK (Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis)/SMILE (Small Incision Lenticule Extraction) in terms of visual outcomes for myopia, astigmatism and hyperopia.
Methods
Studies from PubMed® were included based on predefined criteria comparing TransPRK to LASIK/SMILE in terms of efficacy, efficacy index, safety, safety index, predictability, correction index, difference vector or index of success. A random-effects meta-analysis provided standardized mean differences, odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Results
17 studies with 5686 treated eyes met the inclusion criteria. Compared to LASIK, TransPRK showed a log(OR) of 0.09 (CI: −0.34 to 0.52) for efficacy, −0.85 (CI: −1.40 to −0.31) for safety (favoring LASIK) and 0.08 (CI: −0.28 to 0.44) for predictability. Compared to SMILE, TransPRK had a log(OR) of 0.77 (CI: −0.29 to 1.84) for efficacy, −0.3 (CI: −2.27 to 1.67) for safety and −0.91 (CI: −1.82 to 0) for predictability.
Conclusion
No statistically significant differences were found between TransPRK and LASIK/SMILE in terms of efficacy and predictability. LASIK did show a significant safety advantage compared to TransPRK (negative log[OR], p < 0.05) in the astigmatism and low-to-moderate myopia subgroup but the safety index did not. Procedure choice should be based on patient characteristics, laser availability, complication risk and surgeon experience, and not by performance in efficacy, safety or predictability While LASIK has a lower incidence of haze formation and SMILE offers a better biomechanical stability, TransPRK remains a suitable option especially in the hands of a less experienced surgeon.
ReinsteinDArcherTGobbeM, et al.Epithelial thickness in the normal cornea: three-dimensional display with very high frequency ultrasound. J Refract Surg2008; 24: 571–581.
3.
DuppsWJRandlemanJBKohnenT, et al.Scientific nomenclature for keratorefractive lenticule extraction (KLEx) procedures: a joint editorial statement. J Cataract Refract Surg2023; 49: 1085–1085.
4.
SteinwenderGShajariMMayerWJ, et al.SMILE – small incision lenticule extraction. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd2020; 237: 15–34.
5.
SekundoWKunertKSBlumM. Small incision corneal refractive surgery using the small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) procedure for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism: results of a 6 month prospective study. Br J Ophthalmol2011; 95: 335–339.
6.
WangYMaJZhangJ, et al.Incidence and management of intraoperative complications during small-incision lenticule extraction in 3004 cases. J Cataract Refract Surg2017; 43: 796–802.
7.
JacobsDSAfshariNABishopRJ, et al.Refractive errors preferred practice pattern®. Ophthalmology2023; 130: 1–60.
8.
El BahrawyMAlióJL. Excimer laser 6th generation: state of the art and refractive surgical outcomes. Eye and Vision2015; 2: 6.
9.
Evaluation and quality assurance of refractive surgical interventions by the DOG and the BVA—recommendations of the committee of refractive surgery. Ophthalmologie2024; 121: 1–11.
10.
AlpinsN. Astigmatism analysis by the alpins method. J Cataract Refract Surg2001; 27: 31–49.
11.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ, et al.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol2009; 6: e1000097.
12.
CumpstonMLiTPageMJ, et al.Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2019; 10: ED000142. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.ED000142
13.
HigginsJPT. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J2003; 327: 557–560.
14.
GhadhfanFAl-RajhiAWagonerMD. Laser in situ keratomileusis versus surface ablation: visual outcomes and complications. J Cataract Refract Surg2007; 33: 2041–2048.
15.
AslanidesIGeorgoudisPSelimisV, et al.Single-step transepithelial ASLA (SCHWIND) with mitomycin-C for the correction of high myopia: long term follow-up. Clin Ophthalmol2014; 9: 33–41.
16.
LugerMHAEweringTArba-MosqueraS. Myopia correction with transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy versus femtosecond−assisted laser in situ keratomileusis: one-year case-matched analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg2016; 42: 1579–1587.
17.
MehlanJLinkeSJSkevasC, et al.Safety and complications after three different surface ablation techniques with mitomycin C: a retrospective analysis of 2757 eyes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol2019; 257: 217–223.
18.
GershoniAMimouniMLivnyE, et al.Z-LASIK and trans-PRK for correction of high-grade myopia: safety, efficacy, predictability and clinical outcomes. Int Ophthalmol2019; 39: 753–763.
19.
JiangJJhanjiVSunL, et al.Comparison of visual quality after femto-LASIK and TransPRK in patients with low and moderate myopia. Int Ophthalmol2020; 40: 1419–1428.
20.
MounirAMostafaEMAmmarH, et al.Clinical outcomes of transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy versus femtosecond laser assisted keratomileusis for correction of high myopia in south Egyptian population. Int J Ophthalmol2020; 13: 129–134.
21.
ZhangJFengQDingW, et al.Comparison of clinical results between trans-PRK and femtosecond LASIK for correction of high myopia. BMC Ophthalmol2020; 20: 243.
22.
GershoniAReitblatOMimouniM, et al.Femtosecond laser assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) yields better results than transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (trans-PRK) for correction of low to moderate grade myopia. Eur J Ophthalmol2021; 31: 2914–2922.
23.
ReitblatOGershoniAMimouniM, et al.Refractive outcomes of high-magnitude astigmatism correction using femtosecond LASIK versus transepithelial PRK. Eur J Ophthalmol2021; 31: 2923–2931.
24.
SunLJhanjiVLiS, et al.Vector analysis of astigmatic correction after single-step transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy and femtosecond-assisted laser in-situ keratomileusis for low to moderate myopic astigmatism. Indian J Ophthalmol2022; 70: 3483.
25.
ZhangYLiTLiZ, et al.Clinical outcomes of single-step transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy and off-flap epipolis-laser in situ keratomileusis in moderate to high myopia: 12-month follow-up. BMC Ophthalmol2022; 22: 234.
26.
SimaGTătaruC-IMunteanuM. Evaluation of the efficiency and safety of TransPRK and FS-LASIK refractive procedures on patients with astigmatism and amblyopia. Rom J Ophthalmol2023; 67: 267–274.
27.
JunIKangDSYReinsteinDZ, et al.Clinical outcomes of SMILE with a triple centration technique and corneal wavefront-guided transepithelial PRK in high astigmatism. J Refract Surg2018; 34: 156–163.
28.
ZhengZZhangMJhanjiV, et al.Comparison between aberration-free transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy and small incision lenticule extraction for correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism. Int Ophthalmol2021; 41: 303–314.
29.
LinMZhouHHuZ, et al.Comparison of small incision lenticule extraction and transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy in terms of visual quality in myopia patients. Acta Ophthalmol2021; 99: e1289–e1296.
30.
WangL-XTangJMaK, et al.A 3-month comparison study of subjective and objective visual quality of small incision lenticule extraction and transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy in patients with low and moderate myopia. Int J Ophthalmol2023; 16: 608–615.
31.
AlasbaliT. Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy compared to conventional photorefractive keratectomy: a meta-analysis. J Ophthalmol2022; 2022: 1–10.
32.
SabauADaasLBehkitA, et al.Efficacy, safety, and predictability of transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy: meta-analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg2021; 47: 634–640.
33.
WenDTuRFlitcroftI, et al.Corneal surface ablation Laser refractive surgery for the correction of myopia: a network meta-analysis. J Refract Surg2018; 34: 726–735.
34.
WenDMcAlindenCFlitcroftI, et al.Postoperative efficacy, predictability, safety, and visual quality of Laser corneal refractive surgery: a network meta-analysis. Am J Ophthalmol2017; 178: 65–78.
35.
RandlemanJBRussellBWardMA, et al.Risk factors and prognosis for corneal ectasia after LASIK. Ophthalmology2003; 110: 267–275.
36.
AlióJLMuftuogluOOrtizD, et al.Ten-year follow-up of laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopia. Am J Ophthalmol2008; 145: 55–64.
37.
RoyASDuppsWJRobertsCJ. Comparison of biomechanical effects of small-incision lenticule extraction and laser in situ keratomileusis: finite-element analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg2014; 40: 971–980.
38.
WuDWangYZhangL, et al.Corneal biomechanical effects: small-incision lenticule extraction versus femtosecond laser–assisted laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg2014; 40: 954–962.
39.
AsifMBafnaRMehtaJ, et al.Complications of small incision lenticule extraction. Indian J Ophthalmol2020; 68: 2711.
40.
Ramirez-MirandaARamirez-LuquinTNavasA, et al.Refractive lenticule extraction complications. Cornea2015; 34: 65–67.
41.
TitiyalJSKaurMShaikhF, et al.Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) techniques: patient selection and perspectives. Clin Ophthalmol2018; 12: 1685–1699.
42.
SambhiR-DSSambhiGDSMatherR, et al.Dry eye after refractive surgery: a meta-analysis. Can J Ophthalmol2020; 55: 99–106.
43.
ZhaoDYuanZYangX-Y, et al.Comparison of objective visual quality following SMILE and SmartPulse technology-assisted TransPRK at a 1,050-Hz ablation frequency for moderate-to-high myopia. J Refract Surg2024; 40: e490–e498.
44.
HeMHuangWZhongX. Central corneal sensitivity after small incision lenticule extraction versus femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK for myopia: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. BMC Ophthalmol2015; 15: 141.
45.
ShenZShiKYuY, et al.Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) versus femtosecond Laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for myopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One2016; 11: e0158176.
46.
CuiGDiYYangS, et al.Efficacy of small-incision lenticule extraction surgery in high astigmatism: A meta-analysis. Front Med (Lausanne)2023; 9: 1100241. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1100241
47.
ChowSSWChowLLWLeeCZ, et al.Astigmatism correction using SMILE. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol2019; 8: 391–396.
48.
ChangJ-YLinP-YHsuC-C, et al.Comparison of clinical outcomes of LASIK, trans-PRK, and SMILE for correction of myopia. J Chin Med Assoc2022; 85: 145–151.
49.
ReinsteinDZSekundoWArcherTJ, et al.SMILE For hyperopia with and without astigmatism: results of a prospective multicenter 12-month study. J Refract Surg2022; 38: 760–769.
50.
VarleyGAHuangDRapuanoCJ, et al.LASIK For hyperopia, hyperopic astigmatism, and mixed astigmatism. Ophthalmology2004; 111: 1604–1617.
51.
Arba-MosqueraSde OrtuetaD. LASIK For hyperopia using an aberration-neutral profile with an asymmetric offset centration. J Refract Surg2016; 32: 78–83.
52.
Alió del BarrioJLMilán-CastilloRCanto-CerdanM, et al.FS-LASIK for the treatment of moderate-to-high hyperopia. J Cataract Refract Surg2023; 49: 558–564.
53.
CungHTranLTranT. Three-Month outcomes of SMILE pro with the VISUMAX 800 for myopic astigmatism in a large population. Clin Ophthalmol2025; 19: 417–425.
54.
YooTKKimDKimJS, et al.Comparison of early visual outcomes after SMILE using VISUMAX 800 and VISUMAX 500 for myopia: a retrospective matched case–control study. Sci Rep2024; 14: 11989.
55.
ReinsteinDZArcherTJPotterJG, et al.Refractive and visual outcomes of SMILE for compound myopic astigmatism with the VISUMAX 800. J Refract Surg2023; 39: 294–301.
56.
VarmanAVarmanABalakumarD. Comparison of visual and refractive outcomes of keratorefractive lenticule extraction for compound myopic astigmatism between VisuMax and VISUMAX 800. Clin Ophthalmol2024; 18: 3557–3566.
57.
SaadAKlabeKKircaM, et al.Refractive outcomes of small lenticule extraction (SMILE) pro® with a 2 MHz femtosecond laser. Int Ophthalmol2024; 44: 52.
58.
RymerPMoscoviciBKGomesR, et al.Pain response and symptoms in photorefractive keratectomy: mechanical de-epithelization compared with transepithelial ablation. Arq Bras Oftalmol2021; 85: 152–157.
59.
RymerPMoscoviciBKFreitasMMS, et al.Comparative outcomes of mechanical and transepithelial PRK on the same excimer laser: a contralateral eye study. Eur J Ophthalmol2025; 35: 893–901.
60.
O’DohertyMKirwanCO’KeeffeM, et al.Postoperative pain following epi-LASIK, LASEK, and PRK for myopia. J Refract Surg2007; 23: 133–138.
61.
GaeckleHC. Early clinical outcomes and comparison between trans-PRK and PRK, regarding refractive outcome, wound healing, pain intensity and visual recovery time in a real-world setup. BMC Ophthalmol2021; 21: 181.
