Official ESCRS | European Society of Cataract & Refractive Surgeons


A comparison of the cost effectiveness of SMILE, LASIK, and PRK for treating myopia in a private eye center in Spain

Search Title by author or title

Session Details

Session Title: Moderated Poster Session: Refractive Surgery: Can Results Improve Even Further?

Venue: Poster Village: Pod 2

First Author: : M.Balgos SPAIN

Co Author(s): :    D. Piñero   J. Alio Del Barrio   M. Canto-Cerdan   J. Alió              

Abstract Details


This paper aims to present the cost effectiveness of three laser refractive procedures for treating myopia – namely Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE), Laser Assisted in Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) and Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK).


Vissum Innovation, Alicante, Spain and Universidad Miguel Hernandez, Alicante, Spain


This study involved a cost-utility analysis using a model derived from a private eye center. A number of variables were obtained – the income from the procedures, the annual amortization of the equipment used for each procedure, the annual maintenance cost of the equipment and consumables for each procedure, the quality-adjusted life years (QALY) as computed from the outcomes of each procedure in our center. An Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was then computed – which is the difference in lifetime costs over the difference in lifetime health outcomes, divided by the incremental QALY gained.


The difference in QALYs for SMILE, LASIK, and PRK were not statistically significant. The ICER comparing LASIK to SMILE was 2000 euros/QALY gained. The ICER comparing LASIK to PRK was 2400 euros/QALY gained, and the ICER comparing SMILE to PRK was 2500 euros/QALY gained. While these are within the threshold range for evaluating health interventions in a high-income country like Spain, LASIK had the lowest ICER.


LASIK is more cost-effective, compared with SMILE and PRK, in the treatment of myopia.

Financial Disclosure:


Back to previous