Efficacy of LASIK Versus PRK in Asians With Mild and Moderate Myopia

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details. Identifier: NCT00348049
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : July 4, 2006
Last Update Posted : October 24, 2006
Singapore Armed Forces
Defence Medical Environmental Research Institute
Information provided by:
Singapore National Eye Centre

Brief Summary:

Laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) are currently the 2 main refractive surgeries to correct myopia which are being performed worldwide, with more patients preferring LASIK to PRK because of better comfort and faster rehabilitation. However, in post-LASIK patients, there is a low risk of flap dislodgement. This risk increases with certain occupations which have a higher risk of trauma. Hence, there may be a role for PRK for people which such occupations, e.g. soldiers, parachutists, sportsman.

There are several non-randomised studies which show that PRK is as efficacious, predictable and safe as LASIK for low to moderate myopes. But there have been only a few randomized controlled studies to compare the efficacy and safety of the 2 treatment modalities and all studies comparing LASIK and PRK suffer from a high dropout rate during the follow-up period. We compared the efficacy, predictability, stability and safety of LASIK versus PRK over a one year duration with almost 100% attendance during all follow-up visits.

Condition or disease Intervention/treatment Phase
Myopia Procedure: Laser in Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) Procedure: Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK) Not Applicable

Detailed Description:

This study is a prospective, randomized, clinical trial comparing the efficacy, predictability, stability and safety of LASIK versus PRK in a volunteer group of myopic military servicemen recruited from the Singapore Armed Forces. 132 subjects who were eligible for the study were randomized to undergo either LASIK or PRK in both eyes in a 2:1 ratio. 45 subjects (90 eyes) underwent PRK and 87 subjects (174 eyes) underwent LASIK.

An additional 59 subject underwent a non-randomised arm of the study and underwent PRK.

Study Type : Interventional  (Clinical Trial)
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Single
Primary Purpose: Treatment
Official Title: A Prospective, Randomized Trial Evaluating the Operational Efficacy of LASIK vs. PRK for the Correction of Low and Moderate Myopia in the Singapore Armed Forces
Study Start Date : November 2002
Study Completion Date : August 2005

Primary Outcome Measures :
  1. Comparing the efficacy, predictability, stability and safety of LASIK versus PRK

Secondary Outcome Measures :
  1. Comparing wavefront aberrometry of LASIK vs PRK
  2. Comparing patient satisfaction of LASIK vs PRK
  3. Comparing effects of LASIK vs PRK in terms of post-surgery performance in the military setting

Information from the National Library of Medicine

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.

Ages Eligible for Study:   21 Years to 40 Years   (Adult)
Sexes Eligible for Study:   All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   No

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Male and female subjects were eligible for the study if they were 18 years old or older and had given informed consent; had stable myopia ranging from -2.00 to -5.00D of spherical equivalent myopia, but less than 2.00D of refractive astigmatism as determined by manifest refraction for at least 6 months; a best corrected visual acuity of at least 20/20 and a stable keratometry after not wearing soft contact lenses for at least 2 weeks and hard lenses for at least 3 weeks. Study subjects were required to have a minimum cornea thickness of at least 460um as measured by Orbscan pachymetry.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Subjects were excluded if they had corneal or anterior segment pathology, or myopic peripheral retinal degeneration or myopic macular degeneration; clinical signs of progressive or unstable myopia or keratoconus or were keratoconus suspects; were one-eyed patients; had undergone previous ocular surgery; had a history of herpes zoster ophthalmicus or herpes simplex keratitis; had a history of steroid-responsive rise in intraocular pressure or had a preoperative intraocular pressure of more than 21 mmHg in either eye; had diabetes mellitus, auto-immune disease, severe dry eye, connective tissue disease or significant atopy; on chronic systemic corticosteroid or immunosuppressive therapy; had a cornea thickness which would have resulted in less than 250 microns of remaining posterior corneal thickness below the flap postoperatively or had a central corneal endothelial cell count of less than 1500 cells/mm2 in either eye

Information from the National Library of Medicine

To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.

Please refer to this study by its identifier (NCT number): NCT00348049

Singapore Eye Research Institute
Singapore, Singapore, 168751
Sponsors and Collaborators
Singapore National Eye Centre
Singapore Armed Forces
Defence Medical Environmental Research Institute
Principal Investigator: Donald Tan, FAMS Singapore Eye Research Institute
Principal Investigator: Benjamin Seet Singapore Armed Forces Identifier: NCT00348049     History of Changes
Other Study ID Numbers: R277/21/2002
First Posted: July 4, 2006    Key Record Dates
Last Update Posted: October 24, 2006
Last Verified: October 2002

Keywords provided by Singapore National Eye Centre:

Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Refractive Errors
Eye Diseases