Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Photorefractive keratectomy with mitomycin C versus LASIK in custom surgeries for myopia: a bilateral prospective randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To compare photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) with prophylactic use of mitomycin C (MMC) and LASIK in custom surgeries for myopic astigmatism.

METHODS: Eighty-eight eyes of 44 patients with a minimum estimated ablation depth of 50 microm were randomized to receive PRK with MMC 0.002% for 1 minute in one eye and LASIK in the fellow eye. Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), cycloplegic refraction, slit-lamp microscopy, contrast sensitivity, specular microscopy, aberrometry, and a subjective questionnaire were evaluated. Forty-two patients completed 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS: Mean spherical equivalent refraction error before surgery and mean ablation depth were -3.99+/-1.20 diopters (D) and 73.09+/-14.55 microm in LASIK eyes, and -3.85+/-1.12 D and 70.7+/-14.07 microm in PRK with MMC eyes, respectively. Uncorrected visual acuity was significantly better in PRK with MMC eyes 3 months (P=.04) and 6 months (P=.01) after surgery. Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity and spherical equivalent refraction did not differ significantly in the groups during follow-up (P>.05). Significant haze was not observed in any PRK with MMC eye. Mean higher order aberration was lower in PRK with MMC eyes postoperatively compared with LASIK eyes (P=.01). Better contrast sensitivity was observed in PRK with MMC eyes than LASIK eyes (P<.05). The endothelial cell count did not differ significantly between groups (P=.65). In terms of visual satisfaction, PRK with MMC eyes were better rated.

CONCLUSIONS: Photorefractive keratectomy with MMC appears to be more effective than LASIK in custom surgery for moderate myopia. During 6-month follow-up, no toxic effects of MMC were evident. Long-term follow-up is necessary to attest its safety.

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