Literature DB >> 23603760

Theoretical analyses of the refractive implications of transepithelial PRK ablations.

Samuel Arba Mosquera1, Shady T Awwad.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To analyse the refractive implications of single-step, transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (TransPRK) ablations.
METHODS: A simulation for quantifying the refractive implications of TransPRK ablations has been developed. The simulation includes a simple modelling of corneal epithelial profiles, epithelial ablation profiles as well as refractive ablation profiles, and allows the analytical quantification of the refractive implications of TransPRK in terms of wasted tissue, achieved optical zone (OZ) and induced refractive error.
RESULTS: Wasted tissue occurs whenever the actual corneal epithelial profile is thinner than the applied epithelial ablation profile, achieved OZ is reduced whenever the actual corneal epithelial profile is thicker than the applied epithelial ablation profile and additional refractive errors are induced whenever the actual difference centre-to-periphery in the corneal epithelial profile deviates from the difference in the applied epithelial ablation profile.
CONCLUSIONS: The refractive implications of TransPRK ablations can be quantified using simple theoretical simulations. These implications can be wasted tissue (∼14 µm, if the corneal epithelial profile is thinner than the ablated one), reduced OZ (if the corneal epithelial profile is thicker than ablated one, very severe for low corrections) and additional refractive errors (∼0.66 D, if the centre-to-periphery progression of the corneal epithelial profile deviates from the progression of the ablated one). When TransPRK profiles are applied to normal, not previously treated, non-pathologic corneas, no specific refractive implications associated to the transepithelial profile can be anticipated; TransPRK would provide refractive outcomes equal to those of standard PRK. Adjustments for the planned OZ and, in the event of retreatments, for the target sphere can be easily derived.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cornea; Optics and Refraction; Treatment Lasers

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23603760     DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-302853

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0007-1161            Impact factor:   4.638


  7 in total

1.  Detailed Distribution of Corneal Epithelial Thickness and Correlated Characteristics Measured with SD-OCT in Myopic Eyes.

Authors:  Yanan Wu; Yan Wang
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-05-14       Impact factor: 1.909

2.  Comparison of single-step transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy and conventional photorefractive keratectomy in low to high myopic eyes.

Authors:  Aruna Kumari Gadde; Arjun Srirampur; Kavya Reddy Katta; Tarannum Mansoori; Seth Mensah Armah
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 1.848

3.  Wavefront properties of the anterior and posterior corneal surface after transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy in myopia.

Authors:  Lei Xi
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 2.447

4.  SmartSurfACE transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy with mitomycin C enhancement after small incision lenticule extraction.

Authors:  Amr A Gab-Alla
Journal:  Eye Vis (Lond)       Date:  2021-09-01

5.  Biometric Determinants of Epithelial Thickness Profile Across a Wide Range of Refractive Errors.

Authors:  Onur Ozalp; Eray Atalay
Journal:  Ophthalmol Ther       Date:  2022-03-14

6.  Single-Step Transepithelial PRK vs Alcohol-Assisted PRK in Myopia and Compound Myopic Astigmatism Correction.

Authors:  Bartlomiej J Kaluzny; Iwona Cieslinska; Samuel A Mosquera; Shwetabh Verma
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 1.817

7.  Clinical outcomes of Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy to treat low to moderate myopic astigmatism.

Authors:  Lei Xi; Chen Zhang; Yanling He
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 2.209

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.