Refractive surgery in the late adulthood and adolescent age groups

  • Idan HechtEmail author
  • Asaf Achiron
  • Liron Ben Haim
  • Vera Sorin
  • Michael Mimouni
  • Igor Kaiserman
Refractive Surgery



Most refractive surgeries are performed in the young-adult age group, and less is known about the clinical outcomes of patients in late adulthood and of adolescents. The purpose of this study was to describe the outcomes of refractive surgery in patients over the age of 60 years and under the age of 18 years compared with a control group of patients aged 20–40 years.


This retrospective cohort analysis consisted of 64,970 consecutive cases of 32,074 patients who underwent laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy during a 10-year period in a single center. The populations were characterized, and a comparison of safety, efficacy, and retreatment rates was performed following propensity score matching, separately for hyperopic and myopic treatments.


Included in the analysis after matching were 143 patients above the age of 60, 608 patients aged < 18, and 2313 patients aged 20–40. Older patients undergoing hyperopic treatments had worse safety (0.95 ± 0.1 versus 0.99 ± 0.2, P = 0.023) and efficacy indices (0.89 ± 0.2 versus 0.97 ± 0.2, P = 0.004) compared with young adults. Lower efficacy was also seen in myopic treatments (0.88 ± 0.3 versus 0.97 ± 0.2, P = 0.001). Higher retreatment rates were also seen among older adults (6.2% versus 2.5%, P = 0.044 in hyperopic treatments, 11% versus 1.1%, P < 0.001 in myopic treatments). In adolescents, the safety and efficacy outcomes were slightly better compared with patients aged 20–40, with lower retreatment rates (1% versus 2.7%, P = 0.001).


Refractive surgery in the late adulthood population of our cohort was a relatively safe procedure, yet manifesting lower efficacy and requiring more retreatments. In adolescents, results were comparable to those achieved in young adults.


LASIK PRK Late adulthood Elderly Adolescent Refractive surgery 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

417_2019_4396_MOESM1_ESM.docx (25 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 24 kb)


  1. 1.
    Duffey RJ, Leaming D (2005) US trends in refractive surgery: 2004 ISRS/AAO survey. J Refract Surg 21(6):742–748Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mimouni M, Vainer I, Shapira Y, Levartovsky S, Sela T, Munzer G et al (2016) Factors predicting the need for retreatment after laser refractive surgery. Cornea. 35(5):607–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Food & Drug Administration (2018) When is LASIK not for me? Accessed 18 Jan 2019
  4. 4.
    Achiron A, Gur Z, Aviv U, Hilely A, Mimouni M, Karmona L et al (2017) Predicting refractive surgery outcome: machine learning approach with big data. J Refract Surg 33(9):592–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pokroy R, Mimouni M, Sela T, Munzer G, Kaiserman I (2016) Myopic laser in situ keratomileusis retreatment: incidence and associations. J Cataract Refract Surg 42(10):1408–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ghanem RC, de la Cruz J, Tobaigy FM, Ang LPK, Azar DT (2007) LASIK in the presbyopic age group—safety, efficacy, and predictability in 40-to 69-year-old patients. Ophthalmology 114(7):1303–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    López-Montemayor P, Valdez-García JE, Loya-García D, Hernandez-Camarena JC (2017) Safety, efficacy and refractive outcomes of LASIK surgery in patients aged 65 or older. Int OphthalmolGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friehmann A, Mimouni M, Nemet AY, Sela T, Munzer G, Kaiserman I (2018) Risk factors for epithelial ingrowth following microkeratome-assisted LASIK. J Refract Surg 34(2):100–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shapira Y, Mimouni M, Levartovsky S, Varssano D, Sela T, Munzer G et al (2015) Comparison of three epithelial removal techniques in PRK: mechanical, alcohol-assisted, and transepithelial laser. J Refract Surg 31(11):760–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gerstein AD, Phillips TJ, Rogers GS, Gilchrest BA (1993) Wound healing and aging. Dermatol Clin 11(4):749–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gipson IK (2013) Age-related changes and diseases of the ocular surface and cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54(14):ORSF48–ORSF53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Ohmoto F (2009) Comparison of the changes in corneal biomechanical properties after photorefractive keratectomy and laser in situ keratomileusis. Cornea. 28(7):765–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sackler School of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyEdith Wolfson Medical CenterHolonIsrael
  3. 3.Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of MedicineTechnion Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  4. 4.Department of OphthalmologyRambam Health Care CampusHaifaIsrael
  5. 5.Department of OphthalmologyBarzilai Medical CenterAshkelonIsrael
  6. 6.Faculty of Health SciencesBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations