目的：比较SMART和TransPRK术矫正近视的早期疗效。

方法：回顾性非随机对照研究。选取2018-01/08于我院行SMART和TransPRK术的近视伴散光患者各60例120眼，比较两组患者术后裸眼视力(UCVA)、视觉质量、主观疼痛评分、角膜上皮愈合情况及角膜上皮下混浊(haze)发生情况。

结果：术后5d，1、3mo两组患者UCVA≥1.0眼数所占比例均无差异(P>0.05)，但术后5d SMART组患者视觉质量优于TransPRK组(P<0.05)，且随着时间的延长，两组患者视觉质量逐渐提高。术后1、3d，TransPRK组和SMART组患者主观疼痛评分(3.56±0.96分 vs 3.07±1.07分； 1.22±0.61分 vs 0.84±0.59分)均有差异(P<0.01)。术后5d，TransPRK组患者角膜上皮完全愈合率低于SMART组(69.2% vs 83.3%，P<0.05)。术后1、3mo，两组患者haze发生率(5.0% vs 5.0%； 8.3% vs 10.0%)均无差异(P>0.05)。

结论：SMART与TransPRK术后视力恢复速度和稳定性无明显差别，但SMART术后早期疼痛较轻，角膜上皮愈合速度快，视觉质量更好。

METHODS: Retrospective non-randomized controlled study. Totally 120 eyes of 60 patients with myopia who underwent SMART and TransPRK in our hospital from January to August 2018 were selected respectively. The uncorrected visual acuity(UCVA), visual quality, pain score, corneal epithelial healing and subepithelial haze were compared between two groups.

RESULTS: There was no statistical differences between two groups regarding the proportion of UCVA reaching or exceeding 1.0 at 5d, 1mo and 3mo after operation(P>0.05), but the visual quality of SMART group was better than that of TransPRK group at 5d after operation(P<0.05), and with the prolongation of time, the visual quality of the two groups gradually improved. There was a significant difference in pain scores between the TransPRK group and SMART group(3.56±0.96 vs 3.07±1.07; 1.22±0.61 vs 0.84±0.59)on the 1^st day and 3^rd day after operation(P<0.01). 5d after operation, the complete recovery rate of corneal in TransPRK group was lower than that in SMART group(69.2% vs 83.3%, P<0.05). At 1^st and 3 mo after operation, there was no difference in haze between the two groups(5.0% vs 5.0% and 8.3% vs 10.0%; P>0.05).

CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference between SMART and TransPRK in the speed and stability of visual acuity recovery, but the early postoperative pain of SMART is lighter, the corneal epithelium is healed faster, and the visual quality is better.