We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Comparison of visual results between laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy and epipolis laser in situ keratomileusis to correct myopia and myopic astigmatism.
American Journal of Ophthalmology 2008 September
PURPOSE: To compare the visual results after laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) and epipolis laser in situ keratomileusis (epi-LASIK) to correct myopia.
DESIGN: Retrospective, interventional, nonrandomized comparative study.
METHODS: Patients treated with LASEK to correct myopia < or = -9.00 diopters (D) were compared to age- and refraction-matched patients treated with epi-LASIK using the same excimer laser (Esiris; Schwind Eye Tech Solutions, Kleinostheim, Germany). The epithelial flap was replaced after the ablation in every case. The visual results after both procedures were compared at each postoperative visit (one day, one week, one and three months).
RESULTS: Ninety-four consecutive eyes were included in the study (47 in each group), matched for age and refraction. The preoperative spherical manifest refraction was -3.98 +/- 2.40 D in the LASEK group and -3.95 +/- 2.40 D in the epi-LASIK group (P = .9) (range -0.50 to -9.00 D). The uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) one day postoperatively was 0.7 +/- 0.2 and 0.5 +/- 0.2 (P < .001), and one week after surgery it was 0.8 +/- 0.2 and 0.7 +/- 0.2, respectively (P = .1). The difference was again statistically significant one month after surgery (0.94 +/- 0.1 after LASEK, 0.82 +/- 0.1 after epi-LASIK, P < .001), but not three months postoperatively (1.06 +/- 0.21 and 1.03 +/- 0.18, respectively, P = .1). UCVA was > or =1.0 in 78.7% of LASEK eyes and 65.9% of epi-LASIK eyes three months after surgery. At that moment, the safety indices were 0.99 +/- 0.1 after LASEK and 0.93 +/- 0.1 after epi-LASIK (P = .04). The efficacy indices were 0.97 +/- 0.1 and 0.89 +/- 0.1, respectively (P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a faster visual rehabilitation and better safety and efficacy outcomes after LASEK compared to epi-LASIK with repositioning of the epithelial flap when correcting low to moderate myopia.
DESIGN: Retrospective, interventional, nonrandomized comparative study.
METHODS: Patients treated with LASEK to correct myopia < or = -9.00 diopters (D) were compared to age- and refraction-matched patients treated with epi-LASIK using the same excimer laser (Esiris; Schwind Eye Tech Solutions, Kleinostheim, Germany). The epithelial flap was replaced after the ablation in every case. The visual results after both procedures were compared at each postoperative visit (one day, one week, one and three months).
RESULTS: Ninety-four consecutive eyes were included in the study (47 in each group), matched for age and refraction. The preoperative spherical manifest refraction was -3.98 +/- 2.40 D in the LASEK group and -3.95 +/- 2.40 D in the epi-LASIK group (P = .9) (range -0.50 to -9.00 D). The uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) one day postoperatively was 0.7 +/- 0.2 and 0.5 +/- 0.2 (P < .001), and one week after surgery it was 0.8 +/- 0.2 and 0.7 +/- 0.2, respectively (P = .1). The difference was again statistically significant one month after surgery (0.94 +/- 0.1 after LASEK, 0.82 +/- 0.1 after epi-LASIK, P < .001), but not three months postoperatively (1.06 +/- 0.21 and 1.03 +/- 0.18, respectively, P = .1). UCVA was > or =1.0 in 78.7% of LASEK eyes and 65.9% of epi-LASIK eyes three months after surgery. At that moment, the safety indices were 0.99 +/- 0.1 after LASEK and 0.93 +/- 0.1 after epi-LASIK (P = .04). The efficacy indices were 0.97 +/- 0.1 and 0.89 +/- 0.1, respectively (P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a faster visual rehabilitation and better safety and efficacy outcomes after LASEK compared to epi-LASIK with repositioning of the epithelial flap when correcting low to moderate myopia.
Full text links
Related Resources
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 
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