Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 24, 2026
Correction of Presbyopia by Monocular Bi-Aspheric Ablation Profile
Published on: September 20, 2024
Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) versus laser assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for hyperopia correction
George Settas1, C Settas, E Minos
1Optimax plc, 128 Finchley Road, London, UK, NW3 5HT. settasg@doctors.org.uk
Background:
Hyperopia, or hypermetropia (also known as long-sightedness or far-sightedness), is the condition where the unaccommodating eye brings parallel light to a focus behind the retina instead of on it. Hyperopia can be corrected with both non-surgical and surgical methods, among them photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser assisted In situ keratomileusis (LASIK). There is uncertainty as to whether hyperopic-PRK or hyperopic-LASIK is the better method.
Objectives:
The objectives of this review were to determine whether PRK or LASIK leads to more reliable, stable and safe results when correcting a hyperopic refractive error.
Search Strategy:
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1950 to January 2009), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2009) and LILACS (January 1982 to January 2009). There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 13 January 2009. We also searched the reference lists of the studies included in the review for information about further trials and used the Science Citation Index to search for papers that cite any studies included in this review. We did not handsearch journals or conference proceedings specifically for this review.
Selection Criteria:
We planned to include only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PRK against LASIK for correction of hyperopia and then perform a sensitivity analysis of pre- and post-millennial trials since this is the mid-point in the history of both PRK and LASIK.
Data Collection And Analysis:
We did not identify any studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review.
Main Results:
As no studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, we discussed the results of non-randomised trials comparing hyperopic-PRK with hyperopic-LASIK.
Authors' Conclusions:
No robust, reliable conclusions could be reached, but the non-randomised trials reviewed appear to be in agreement that hyperopic-PRK and hyperopic-LASIK are of comparable efficacy. High quality, well-planned open RCTs are needed in order to obtain a robust clinical evidence base.
