CLINICAL TRIAL
EVALUATION STUDIES
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Evaluation of the prophylactic use of mitomycin-C to inhibit haze formation after photorefractive keratectomy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of the prophylactic use of mitomycin-C to inhibit haze formation after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for medium and high myopia in eyes that were not good candidates for laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

SETTING: Carones Ophthalmology Center, Milan, Italy.

METHODS: This prospective randomized masked study comprised 60 consecutive eyes (60 patients). The inclusion criteria were a spherical equivalent correction between -6.00 and -10.00 diopters (D) and inadequate corneal thickness to allow a LASIK procedure with a residual stromal thickness of more than 250 microm. The eyes were divided into 2 groups according to the randomization protocol. After PRK, the study group eyes were treated with a single intraoperative dose of mitomycin-C (0.2 mg/mL), applied topically with a soaked microsponge placed over the ablated area and maintained for 2 minutes. The control eyes did not receive this treatment. Refraction, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and slitlamp evidence of corneal opacity (haze) or other visible complications were evaluated.

RESULTS: No toxic or side effects were encountered postoperatively. No study group eye had a haze rate higher than 1 during the 6-month follow-up; 19 eyes (63%) in the control group did (P =.01). At 6 months, the between-group difference in the refractive outcome was statistically significant (P =.05), with 26 study group eyes (87%) and 14 control eyes (47%) within +/-0.50 D of the attempted correction. No study group eye had a BCVA loss during the follow-up; 7 control eyes had lost 1 to 3 lines at 6 months (P =.0006).

CONCLUSIONS: The prophylactic use of a diluted mitomycin-C 0.02% solution applied intraoperatively in a single dose after PRK produced lower haze rates, better UCVA and BCVA results, and more accurate refractive outcomes than those achieved in the control group.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app