REFRACTIVE SURGERY IN ATHLETES: SAFETY, VISUAL PERFORMANCE AND RETURN-TO-SPORT CONSIDERATIONS - A NARRATIVE REVIEW
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31435/ijitss.1(49).2026.5150Keywords:
Refractive Surgery, Athletes, LASIK, PRK, SMILE, Visual Performance, Contrast Sensitivity, Dry Eye, Ocular Trauma, Return to SportAbstract
Background: Optimal vision is performance-critical in many sports, while spectacles and contact lenses may impair comfort, safety, and reliability during training and competition. Corneal refractive surgery (photorefractive keratectomy—PRK, laser in situ keratomileusis—LASIK, small-incision lenticule extraction—SMILE) is increasingly considered by athletes, but procedure selection must balance visual quality, ocular-surface stability, biomechanical safety, and sport-specific trauma risk [1,4–7,19,20].
Aim: To synthesize contemporary evidence on safety, visual performance, and return-to-sport considerations after PRK, LASIK, and SMILE in athletic and athletic-like populations [1–8,19,20].
Material and methods: A narrative review was conducted using PubMed as the primary database (supplemented by manual reference chasing) for English-language human studies (2018–2025) addressing refractive surgery outcomes relevant to athletes: visual acuity/quality, contrast sensitivity and low-contrast acuity, dry eye and symptoms, ectasia/biomechanics, traumatic flap events, and occupational return-to-duty in visually demanding cohorts [1–8,13–17,19,20].
Results: Modern PRK, femtosecond LASIK, and SMILE provide high efficacy and safety in most appropriately selected patients [1–3]. SMILE and PRK avoid a permanent flap and may be preferable in high-impact/contact sports [9–11]. Visual quality (including low-contrast performance) generally recovers rapidly after LASIK/SMILE and more gradually after PRK [1,14,16,17]; dry-eye metrics tend to worsen most after LASIK, with smaller or nonsignificant changes reported after PRK/SMILE in meta-analytic evidence [4,5]. Ectasia remains rare but is linked to preoperative risk factors; reported ectasia after SMILE is uncommon in large cohorts [6,7]. Return-to-sport timelines are primarily based on healing biology and trauma risk rather than randomized evidence [19–21].
Conclusions: For athletes, procedure choice should be individualized by sport exposure, ocular-surface status, corneal tomography/biomechanical risk, and performance demands under glare/low contrast [4–8,14,16,17]. Flapless approaches (PRK/SMILE) are generally favored for contact sports; structured, staged return-to-sport with protective eyewear is recommended [9–11,19–21].
References
Sia, R. K., Ryan, D. S., Eaddy, J. B., Logan, L. A., Rodgers, M., Rivers, B. A., et al. (2021). Small-incision lenticule extraction in the U.S. military: Prospective study of visual and military task performance. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 47(12), 1503–1510. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000689
Godiwalla, R. Y., Magone, M. T., Kaupp, S. B., Jung, H., & Cason, J. B. (2019). Long-term outcomes of refractive surgery performed during the military. Military Medicine, 184(11–12), e808–e812. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usz096
Ong, S. C., Chay, I., Low, J., Tan, D., & See, B. (2025). Occupational outcomes of photorefractive keratectomy in young Asian military aviators. Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance, 96(2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.3357/AMHP.6544.2025
Sambhi, R. S., Sambhi, G. D. S., Mather, R., & Malvankar-Mehta, M. S. (2020). Dry eye after refractive surgery: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology, 55(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2019.07.005
Wong, A. H. Y., Cheung, R. K. Y., Kua, W. N., Shih, K. C., Chan, T. C. Y., & Wan, K. H. (2019). Dry eyes after SMILE. Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology, 8(5), 397–405. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.APO.0000580136.80338.d0
Moshirfar, M., Tukan, A. N., Bundogji, N., Liu, H. Y., McCabe, S. E., Ronquillo, Y. C., et al. (2021). Ectasia after corneal refractive surgery: A systematic review. Ophthalmology and Therapy, 10(4), 753–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-021-00383-w
Brar, S., Roopashree, C. R., & Ganesh, S. (2021). Incidence of ectasia after SMILE from a high-volume refractive surgery center in India. Journal of Refractive Surgery, 37(12), 800–808. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20210812-03
Moshirfar, M., West, D. G., Miller, C. M., West, W. B., Jr., McCabe, S. E., Shmunes, K. M., et al. (2021). Incidence, risk, and visual outcomes after repositioning of acute non-traumatic flap dislocations following femtosecond-assisted LASIK. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(11), Article 2478. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10112478
Khoueir, Z., Haddad, N. M., Saad, A., Chelala, E., & Warrak, E. (2013). Traumatic flap dislocation 10 years after LASIK: Case report and literature review. Journal Français d’Ophtalmologie, 36(1), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfo.2012.03.004
Tsai, T. H., Peng, K. L., & Lin, C. J. (2017). Traumatic corneal flap displacement after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). International Medical Case Reports Journal, 10, 143–148. https://doi.org/10.2147/IMCRJ.S128637
Grezda, A., Mema, V., Jaho, J., & Dai, J. (2010). Traumatic corneal flap displacement five years after laser in situ keratomileusis. Hippokratia, 14(1), 48–50.
Kanclerz, P., & Khoramnia, R. (2021). Flap thickness and the risk of complications in mechanical microkeratome and femtosecond laser in situ keratomileusis: A literature review and statistical analysis. Diagnostics, 11(9), Article 1588. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11091588
Shang, J., Shen, Y., Jhanji, V., Zhou, X., Zhao, J., Zhao, Y., & Zhou, X. (2021). Comparison of corneal biomechanics in post-SMILE, post-LASEK, and keratoconic eyes. Frontiers in Medicine, 8, Article 695697. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.695697
Yue, P., Wang, Z., Wu, D., Zhang, H., & Zhang, P. (2023). The effect of small incision lenticule extraction on contrast sensitivity. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 17, Article 1132681. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2023.1132681
Hang, Y. M., Liang, C. M., Weng, T. H., Chien, K. H., & Lee, C. H. (2021). Mitomycin C for the prevention of corneal haze in photorefractive keratectomy: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Acta Ophthalmologica, 99(6), 652–662. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.14704
Miraftab, M., Hashemi, H., Aghamirsalim, M., Fayyaz, S., & Asgari, S. (2021). Matched comparison of corneal higher order aberrations induced by SMILE to femtosecond assisted LASIK and to PRK in correcting moderate and high myopia: 3.00 mm vs. 6.00 mm. BMC Ophthalmology, 21(1), Article 216. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-01987-3
Tian, H., Gao, W., Xu, C., & Wang, Y. (2023). Clinical outcomes and higher order aberrations of wavefront-guided LASIK versus SMILE for correction of myopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Ophthalmologica, 101(6), 606–618. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.15638
Kang, E. M., Ryu, I. H., Lee, I. S., Kim, J. K., Kim, S. W., & Ji, Y. W. (2022). Comparison of corneal higher-order aberrations following topography-guided LASIK and SMILE for myopic correction: A propensity score matching analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(20), Article 6171. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11206171
Ohana, O., & Alabiad, C. (2021). Ocular related sports injuries. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 32(4), 1606–1611. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000007618
Micieli, J. A., & Easterbrook, M. (2017). Eye and orbital injuries in sports. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 36(2), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csm.2016.11.006
Tanzer, D. J., Brown, M. C., & Schallhorn, S. C. (2024). Photorefractive keratectomy in experienced U.S. naval aviators: A prospective evaluation. Journal of Refractive Surgery, 40(6), e371–e380. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20240422-02
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dominik Poszwa, Zuzanna Dynowska, Daniel Markowski, Ewa Sobolewska, Magdalena Baranowska, Viktoria Kretschmer, Wiktor Daniszewski, Jakub Rodziewicz, Patryk Kondracki
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles are published in open-access and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Hence, authors retain copyright to the content of the articles.
CC BY 4.0 License allows content to be copied, adapted, displayed, distributed, re-published or otherwise re-used for any purpose including for adaptation and commercial use provided the content is attributed.
How to Cite
