Range-qualified cohorts may include eyes outside −6.00 D to −10.00 D. A mean-qualified cohort may also include eyes outside the interval. Inspect the reported baseline and eligibility definition before comparing outcomes.
18qualifying arms
13source studies
3,019reported enrolled eyes*
5procedures represented

* Descriptive sum of reported arm counts; missing counts are not treated as zero.

Underlying cohorts

Why this arm is included
Reported mean falls within the high-myopia view
Reported mean: -8.83 D · range not reported
1 year97 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
Postoperative night glare
Postoperative halos
HIGH evidencePROSPECTIVE COHORTVerified evidence

Keratorefractive Lenticule Extraction for Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism With the VISUMAX 800 (2025)

SMILEVISUMAX 800473 enrolled eyes
Why this arm is included
Reported range overlaps the high-myopia view
Reported range: -10 to -0.25 D · mean: -4.49 D
6 months473 observed eyes
93.2%
473 eyes
Source
Uncorrected 20/20 or better
95.1%
473 eyes
Source
Refraction within ±0.50 D
99.6%
473 eyes
Source
Refraction within ±1.00 D
0%
0/473 eyes
Source
Lost at least 2 lines of CDVA
HIGH evidenceFDA POST APPROVALVerified evidence

Three Year Results from the United States FDA Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study of the EVO/EVO+ Implantable Collamer Lens (2025)

ICLEVO Implantable Collamer Lens629 enrolled eyes
Why this arm is included
Reported range overlaps the high-myopia view
Reported range: -15.62 to -3 D · mean: -7.62 D
3 years629 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
90.7%
629 eyes
Source
Refraction within ±0.50 D
99.0%
629 eyes
Source
Refraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
-0.12 DSource
Mean postoperative spherical equivalent
48.9%
629 eyes
Source
Gained 1 or more lines of corrected visual acuity
0.32%
2/629 eyes
Source
Lens exchange rate
0.16%
1/629 eyes
Source
Anterior subcapsular cataract rate
LOW evidenceRETROSPECTIVEVerified evidence

One-Stage Versus Two-Stage Bilateral Implantable Collamer Lens Implantation: A Comparison of Efficacy and Safety (2024)

ICLDevice not reported100 enrolled eyes
Why this arm is included
Reported mean falls within the high-myopia view
Reported mean: -7.9 D · range not reported
Mean 1.1 years100 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
Post-ICL endophthalmitis
LOW evidenceRETROSPECTIVEVerified evidence

One-Stage Versus Two-Stage Bilateral Implantable Collamer Lens Implantation: A Comparison of Efficacy and Safety (2024)

ICLDevice not reported78 enrolled eyes
Why this arm is included
Reported mean falls within the high-myopia view
Reported mean: -8 D · range not reported
Mean 1.3 years78 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
Post-ICL endophthalmitis
MODERATE evidenceRETROSPECTIVEVerified evidence

Eight-Year Outcomes of Implantation of Posterior Chamber Phakic Intraocular Lens With a Central Port for Moderate to High Ametropia (2021)

ICLEVO Implantable Collamer Lens177 enrolled eyes
Why this arm is included
Reported mean falls within the high-myopia view
Reported mean: -7.99 D · range not reported
8 years177 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
83.0%
177 eyes
Source
Refraction within ±0.50 D
93.0%
177 eyes
Source
Refraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
1.7%
3/177 eyes
Source
Cataract requiring lens extraction or exchange
Efficacy index
Safety index
MODERATE evidencePROSPECTIVE COHORTVerified evidence

Five-year outcomes of EVO implantable collamer lens implantation for the correction of high myopia and super high myopia (2021)

ICLEVO Implantable Collamer LensEye count not reported
Why this arm is included
Reported range overlaps the high-myopia view
Reported range: -12 to -6 D · mean: -9.72 D
5 yearsFollow-up sample not reported
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
60.5%Source
Refraction within ±0.50 D
79.1%Source
Refraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
-0.67 DSource
Mean postoperative spherical equivalent
Efficacy index
Safety index
LOW evidenceRETROSPECTIVEVerified evidence

Visual Outcomes, Footplate Position and Vault Achieved with the Visian Implantable Collamer Lens for Myopic Astigmatism (2021)

ICLEVO Implantable Collamer Lens42 enrolled eyes
Why this arm is included
Reported range overlaps the high-myopia view
Reported range: -16.98 to -4.4 D · mean: -10.83 D
3 monthsFollow-up sample not reported
Uncorrected 20/20 or better
Refraction within ±0.50 D
Refraction within ±1.00 D
Lost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Why this arm is included
Reported range overlaps the high-myopia view
Reported range: -11 to -1 D
5 yearsFollow-up sample not reported
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Refraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
Uncorrected distance vision 20/25 or better
Lost no lines of CDVA
HIGH evidenceFDA PIVOTALVerified evidence

FDA pivotal clinical study of PRK with the ALLEGRETTO WAVE EYE-Q (2016)

PRKALLEGRETTO WAVE EYE-Q320 enrolled eyes
Why this arm is included
Reported range overlaps the high-myopia view
Reported range: -6 to -0.75 D · mean: -3.351 D
3 months317 observed eyes
90.9%
288/317 eyes
Source · 29
Uncorrected 20/20 or better
92.4%
293/317 eyes
Source · 27
Refraction within ±0.50 D
99.4%
315/317 eyes
Source · 27
Refraction within ±1.00 D
0.30%
1/317 eyes
Source · 16
Lost at least 2 lines of CDVA
6 months314 observed eyes
93.0%
292/314 eyes
Source · 29
Uncorrected 20/20 or better
93.3%
293/314 eyes
Source · 27
Refraction within ±0.50 D
99.7%
313/314 eyes
Source · 27
Refraction within ±1.00 D
0%
0/314 eyes
Source · 16
Lost at least 2 lines of CDVA
12 months311 observed eyes
94.5%
294/311 eyes
Source · 29
Uncorrected 20/20 or better
94.5%
294/311 eyes
Source · 28
Refraction within ±0.50 D
99.4%
309/311 eyes
Source · 28
Refraction within ±1.00 D
0%
0/311 eyes
Source · 16
Lost at least 2 lines of CDVA
MODERATE evidencePROSPECTIVE COHORTVerified evidence

Dry Eye Disease following Refractive Surgery: A 12-Month Follow-Up of SMILE versus FS-LASIK in High Myopia (2015)

SMILEDevice not reported47 enrolled eyes
Why this arm is included
Reported mean falls within the high-myopia view
Reported mean: -7.46 D · range not reported
1 month47 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
6.28 s
47 patients
Source · Table 3
Tear breakup time
0.77
47 patients
Source · Table 4
Salisbury Eye Evaluation Questionnaire dry-eye score
3 months47 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
8.21 s
47 patients
Source · Table 3
Tear breakup time
0.34
47 patients
Source · Table 4
Salisbury Eye Evaluation Questionnaire dry-eye score
6 months47 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
9.57 s
47 patients
Source · Table 3
Tear breakup time
0.13
47 patients
Source · Table 4
Salisbury Eye Evaluation Questionnaire dry-eye score
12 months47 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
9.83 s
47 patients
Source · Table 3
Tear breakup time
0.04
47 patients
Source · Table 4
Salisbury Eye Evaluation Questionnaire dry-eye score
MODERATE evidencePROSPECTIVE COHORTVerified evidence

Dry Eye Disease following Refractive Surgery: A 12-Month Follow-Up of SMILE versus FS-LASIK in High Myopia (2015)

LASIKDevice not reported43 enrolled eyes
Why this arm is included
Reported mean falls within the high-myopia view
Reported mean: -7.44 D · range not reported
1 month43 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
6.53 s
43 patients
Source · Table 3
Tear breakup time
1.56
43 patients
Source · Table 4
Salisbury Eye Evaluation Questionnaire dry-eye score
3 months43 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
7.42 s
43 patients
Source · Table 3
Tear breakup time
1.21
43 patients
Source · Table 4
Salisbury Eye Evaluation Questionnaire dry-eye score
6 months43 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
8.19 s
43 patients
Source · Table 3
Tear breakup time
0.49
43 patients
Source · Table 4
Salisbury Eye Evaluation Questionnaire dry-eye score
12 months43 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
9.30 s
43 patients
Source · Table 3
Tear breakup time
0.14
43 patients
Source · Table 4
Salisbury Eye Evaluation Questionnaire dry-eye score
MODERATE evidencePROSPECTIVE COHORTVerified evidence

Single-Step Transepithelial ASLA (SCHWIND) With Mitomycin-C for the Correction of High Myopia: Long-Term Follow-Up (2015)

TransPRKAMARIS41 enrolled eyes
Why this arm is included
Reported mean falls within the high-myopia view
Reported mean: -7.9 D · range not reported
12 months41 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Refraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
-0.10 D
41 eyes
Source · Abstract
Mean postoperative spherical equivalent
0.000 logMAR
41 eyes
Source · Abstract
Mean uncorrected distance visual acuity
Why this arm is included
Reported mean falls within the high-myopia view
Reported mean: -8.2 D · range not reported
12 months29 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Refraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
-0.20 D
29 eyes
Source · Abstract
Mean postoperative spherical equivalent
0.060 logMAR
29 eyes
Source · Abstract
Mean uncorrected distance visual acuity
Why this arm is included
Reported mean falls within the high-myopia view
Reported mean: -7.4 D · range not reported
12 months31 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Refraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
-0.08 D
31 eyes
Source · Abstract
Mean postoperative spherical equivalent
0.050 logMAR
31 eyes
Source · Abstract
Mean uncorrected distance visual acuity
MODERATE evidencePROSPECTIVE COHORTVerified evidence

Comparison of dry eye and corneal sensitivity between small incision lenticule extraction and femtosecond LASIK for myopia (2013)

SMILEDevice not reported38 enrolled eyes
Why this arm is included
Reported range overlaps the high-myopia view
Reported range: -9 to -4.25 D · mean: -6.68 D
1 week37 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
23.95
37 patients
Source · Table 3
Ocular Surface Disease Index
4.32 s
37 patients
Source · Table 3
Tear breakup time
13.51 mm
37 patients
Source · Table 3
Schirmer I test without anesthesia
1 month37 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
16.72
37 patients
Source · Table 3
Ocular Surface Disease Index
5.68 s
37 patients
Source · Table 3
Tear breakup time
12.11 mm
37 patients
Source · Table 3
Schirmer I test without anesthesia
3 months36 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
12.05
36 patients
Source · Table 3
Ocular Surface Disease Index
5.03 s
36 patients
Source · Table 3
Tear breakup time
14.14 mm
36 patients
Source · Table 3
Schirmer I test without anesthesia
6 months36 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
8.47
36 patients
Source · Table 3
Ocular Surface Disease Index
7.06 s
36 patients
Source · Table 3
Tear breakup time
13.28 mm
36 patients
Source · Table 3
Schirmer I test without anesthesia
MODERATE evidencePROSPECTIVE COHORTVerified evidence

Comparison of dry eye and corneal sensitivity between small incision lenticule extraction and femtosecond LASIK for myopia (2013)

LASIKDevice not reported33 enrolled eyes
Why this arm is included
Reported range overlaps the high-myopia view
Reported range: -12.5 to -2 D · mean: -7.96 D
1 week32 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
18.78
32 patients
Source · Table 3
Ocular Surface Disease Index
4.70 s
32 patients
Source · Table 3
Tear breakup time
10.00 mm
32 patients
Source · Table 3
Schirmer I test without anesthesia
1 month31 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
17.77
31 patients
Source · Table 3
Ocular Surface Disease Index
3.77 s
31 patients
Source · Table 3
Tear breakup time
10.90 mm
31 patients
Source · Table 3
Schirmer I test without anesthesia
3 months30 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
16.22
30 patients
Source · Table 3
Ocular Surface Disease Index
4.43 s
30 patients
Source · Table 3
Tear breakup time
13.73 mm
30 patients
Source · Table 3
Schirmer I test without anesthesia
6 months30 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
Not reportedRefraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
15.50
30 patients
Source · Table 3
Ocular Surface Disease Index
4.97 s
30 patients
Source · Table 3
Tear breakup time
13.17 mm
30 patients
Source · Table 3
Schirmer I test without anesthesia
MODERATE evidenceRETROSPECTIVEVerified evidence

Ten-year follow-up of photorefractive keratectomy for myopia of less than -6 diopters (2008)

PRKDevice not reported225 enrolled eyes
Why this arm is included
Reported range overlaps the high-myopia view
Reported range: -6 to 0 D
10 years225 observed eyes
Not reportedUncorrected 20/20 or better
Not reportedRefraction within ±0.50 D
75.0%
169/225 eyes
Source
Refraction within ±1.00 D
Not reportedLost at least 2 lines of CDVA
Additional source-reported outcomes
92.0%
207/225 eyes
Source
MRSE within ±2.00 D of target
42.0%
95/225 eyes
Source
Retreatment rate