Evidence Hub

Comparison of visual quality and optical zones after TransPRK, SMILE, and FS-LASIK myopia correction procedures

Chen W, Yang Z

BMC ophthalmology, 2025

82 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background: TransPRK, SMILE, and FS-LASIK are widely used surgical procedures for myopia correction, but differences in postoperative visual quality and optical zone design remain a subject of clinical interest. This study aimed to compare visual outcomes, higher-order aberrations (HOAs), contrast sensitivity, optical zone diameter, and corneal biomechanics among these three techniques.

Methods: In this prospective cohort study, 82 patients (164 eyes) with myopia were randomly assigned to undergo TransPRK (n = 56 eyes), SMILE (n = 52 eyes), or FS-LASIK (n = 56 eyes). All procedures were performed at a single center, and patients were followed for six months postoperatively. Outcome measures included uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), HOAs, contrast sensitivity under both bright and dark conditions, optical zone diameter, refractive error, corneal biomechanical parameters (corneal hysteresis and resistance factor), and subjective symptoms such as nighttime glare and halos. Statistical analysis involved ANOVA and chi-square tests.

Results: At six months, all groups achieved comparable UCVA (≥ 96% achieving ≥ 1.0), but the TransPRK group demonstrated significantly lower total HOAs (0.25 ± 0.07 μm) and spherical aberrations (+ 0.05 ± 0.02 μm) than SMILE and FS-LASIK (P 1.0), with non-significant trends favoring SMILE for UCVA (98.08%) and TransPRK for refractive stability (-0.12 ± 0.25D; all P > 0.05). The SMILE group preserved the best corneal biomechanics (CH: 10.1 ± 1.1 mmHg;…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 82 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free