PURPOSE: To assess the advantages and safety of using mitomycin C (MMC) with laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) by measuring high order aberrations of the cornea. METHODS: We analyzed the results of 86 eyes that had LASEK plus a brushstroke of MMC 0.01%. Another group of 100 eyes had LASEK only (control group). Mean follow-up was 312 days for the MMC group and 774 days for the control group. A Nidek EC-5000 laser was used in all eyes. We measured mean refractive error, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), haze, and high order aberrations before and at 1 month and nearly 1 year after LASEK. RESULTS: Mean baseline spherical equivalent refraction was -6.80 +/- 3.00 D for the MMC group and -6.00 +/- 3.10 D for the control group (P=.34). In eyes with low myopia (-1.20 to -10.80 D), a single ablation zone of 6 mm with a transition zone of 8 mm was used, and in the higher myopia group (-5.60 to -15.50 D), smoothing and a cross sphere procedure (+0.75 D) were used. Mean spherical equivalent refraction after LASEK for low myopia in the MMC group at last examination (mean follow-up 312 days) was +0.50 +/- 0.93, and 0 +/- 0.34 D for the control group. Mean spherical equivalent refraction after LASEK for high myopia in the MMC group at last examination (mean follow-up 312 days) was +0.50 +/- 1.03 D, and +0.40 +/- 0.78 D for the control group. Mean haze in the low myopia MMC group was 0.06 and in the control group, 0.11; in the high myopia MMC group it was 0.1, and in the control group, 0.27 (all differences P<.05). No differences between baseline and postoperative BSCVA were noted. Early and late overcorrection were noted in the MMC group. Increased high order aberrations were evident at 1 month and 1 year in the MMC groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of mitomycin C 0.01% with LASEK significantly decreased subepithelial haze. However, refractive outcome was less predictable. High order aberrations increased after LASEK with MMC. Additional studies with longer follow-up are necessary to evaluate long-term effects, and ideal MMC concentration and exposure time.
PURPOSE: To assess the advantages and safety of using mitomycin C (MMC) with laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) by measuring high order aberrations of the cornea. METHODS: We analyzed the results of 86 eyes that had LASEK plus a brushstroke of MMC 0.01%. Another group of 100 eyes had LASEK only (control group). Mean follow-up was 312 days for the MMC group and 774 days for the control group. A Nidek EC-5000 laser was used in all eyes. We measured mean refractive error, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), haze, and high order aberrations before and at 1 month and nearly 1 year after LASEK. RESULTS: Mean baseline spherical equivalent refraction was -6.80 +/- 3.00 D for the MMC group and -6.00 +/- 3.10 D for the control group (P=.34). In eyes with low myopia (-1.20 to -10.80 D), a single ablation zone of 6 mm with a transition zone of 8 mm was used, and in the higher myopia group (-5.60 to -15.50 D), smoothing and a cross sphere procedure (+0.75 D) were used. Mean spherical equivalent refraction after LASEK for low myopia in the MMC group at last examination (mean follow-up 312 days) was +0.50 +/- 0.93, and 0 +/- 0.34 D for the control group. Mean spherical equivalent refraction after LASEK for high myopia in the MMC group at last examination (mean follow-up 312 days) was +0.50 +/- 1.03 D, and +0.40 +/- 0.78 D for the control group. Mean haze in the low myopia MMC group was 0.06 and in the control group, 0.11; in the high myopia MMC group it was 0.1, and in the control group, 0.27 (all differences P<.05). No differences between baseline and postoperative BSCVA were noted. Early and late overcorrection were noted in the MMC group. Increased high order aberrations were evident at 1 month and 1 year in the MMC groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of mitomycin C 0.01% with LASEK significantly decreased subepithelial haze. However, refractive outcome was less predictable. High order aberrations increased after LASEK with MMC. Additional studies with longer follow-up are necessary to evaluate long-term effects, and ideal MMC concentration and exposure time.
Authors: Ajay Sharma; Maneesh M Mehan; Sunilima Sinha; John W Cowden; Rajiv R Mohan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-01-24 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Ashish Tandon; Ajay Sharma; Jason T Rodier; Alexander M Klibanov; Frank G Rieger; Rajiv R Mohan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Isabel Rodríguez-Pérez; Juan Gros-Otero; Miguel A Teus; Rafael Cañones; Montserrat García-González Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 2.209
Authors: Esther Arranz-Marquez; Andreas Katsanos; Vassilios P Kozobolis; Anastasios G P Konstas; Miguel A Teus Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Soohyun Kim; Young Woo Park; Euiri Lee; Sang Wan Park; Sungwon Park; Hyunwoo Noh; Jong Whi Kim; Je Kyung Seong; Kangmoon Seo Journal: J Vet Med Sci Date: 2015-11-26 Impact factor: 1.267