CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Epithelial healing and clinical outcomes in excimer laser photorefractive surgery following three epithelial removal techniques: mechanical, alcohol, and excimer laser.

PURPOSE: To evaluate epithelial healing, postoperative pain, and visual and refractive outcomes after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) using three epithelial removal techniques.

DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized, comparative trial.

SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine and Balgensesang Ophthalmology Clinic, Seoul, Korea.

INTERVENTIONS: For the PRK procedure, the corneal epithelium was removed in one of three ways: mechanically (conventional PRK [PRK]) in 88 eyes of 44 patients; using excimer laser (transepithelial PRK [tPRK]) in 106 eyes of 53 patients; or using 20% diluted alcohol, laser-assisted subepithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) in 106 eyes of 53 patients.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Epithelial healing, postoperative pain, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), and remaining refractive error.

RESULTS: The mean postoperative pain scores were 4.84 +/- 1.45 for PRK, 4.71 +/- 1.62 for tPRK, and 4.63 +/- 1.52 for LASEK (P = .125). The mean epithelial healing rates were 12.3 +/- 4.6 for PRK, 15.2 +/- 4.9 for tPRK, and 18.1 +/- 5.2 mm2/day for LASEK (P < .001). The postoperative 6-month remaining mean spherical equivalents (diopters) were -0.46 +/- 1.01 for PRK, 0.18 +/- 0.91 for tPRK, and -0.82 +/- 1.18 for LASEK (P = .01). The LASEK group showed less favorable UCVA than other groups. There was no significant difference in BSCVA between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative pain, subepithelial opacity and BSCVA were similar regardless of the epithelial removal procedure. A faster epithelial healing rate did not result in better visual or refractive outcomes. Using the same nomogram, tPRK resulted in a slight overcorrection, and LASEK resulted in a slight undercorrection.

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.

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