Ugur Celik1, Ercüment Bozkurt2, Burcu Celik2, Ahmet Demirok3, Omer F Yilmaz2. 1. Gaziosmanpaşa Taksim Training and Research Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology, Istanbul, Turkey. Electronic address: h.ugurcelik@gmail.com. 2. Beyoglu Eye Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 3. Istanbul Medeniyet University, Department of Ophthalmology, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, safety and postoperative pain of mechanical versus transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) techniques. SETTING: Cornea and refractive surgery subspecialty. DESIGN: Prospective clinical trial. METHODS: This prospective comparative study included 84 eyes of 42 patients with myopia who received mechanical PRK (m-PRK) in 1 eye and transepithelial PRK (t-PRK) in the contralateral eye. The mean patient age was 28.5±6.3 years (range 20-46 years). Postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), manifest refractions, postoperative epithelial healing time, surgical time, postoperative pain rating and corneal haze were recorded. RESULTS: At week 1, statistically the UDVA was significantly better in the t-PRK eyes; however, at 3 months, similar refractive stability was achieved in both groups. The mean spherical equivalent (SE) decreased from -2.44±1.00D (m-PRK eyes) and -2.88±1.24D (t-PRK eyes) at baseline to -0.19±0.38D and -0.30±0.40D, respectively, after 1 year. Surgical time was 98.6±9.8s in m-PRK eyes and 58.0±6.4s in t-PRK eyes. On postoperative days 1 and 3, using the global assessment rating, 81% of mPRK eyes that had pain, reported more pain than that reported for the tPRK eyes. In addition, m-PRK treated eyes demonstrated higher mean pain scores based on the 11-point numerical rating scale and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The mean time to complete epithelial healing was 2.19±0.39 days (t-PRK) and 3.76±0.43 days (m-PRK). CONCLUSION: t-PRK for mild-to-moderate myopia was more comfortable than conventional m-PRK; patients had less pain, and faster healing time.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, safety and postoperative pain of mechanical versus transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) techniques. SETTING: Cornea and refractive surgery subspecialty. DESIGN: Prospective clinical trial. METHODS: This prospective comparative study included 84 eyes of 42 patients with myopia who received mechanical PRK (m-PRK) in 1 eye and transepithelial PRK (t-PRK) in the contralateral eye. The mean patient age was 28.5±6.3 years (range 20-46 years). Postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), manifest refractions, postoperative epithelial healing time, surgical time, postoperative pain rating and corneal haze were recorded. RESULTS: At week 1, statistically the UDVA was significantly better in the t-PRK eyes; however, at 3 months, similar refractive stability was achieved in both groups. The mean spherical equivalent (SE) decreased from -2.44±1.00D (m-PRK eyes) and -2.88±1.24D (t-PRK eyes) at baseline to -0.19±0.38D and -0.30±0.40D, respectively, after 1 year. Surgical time was 98.6±9.8s in m-PRK eyes and 58.0±6.4s in t-PRK eyes. On postoperative days 1 and 3, using the global assessment rating, 81% of mPRK eyes that had pain, reported more pain than that reported for the tPRK eyes. In addition, m-PRK treated eyes demonstrated higher mean pain scores based on the 11-point numerical rating scale and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The mean time to complete epithelial healing was 2.19±0.39 days (t-PRK) and 3.76±0.43 days (m-PRK). CONCLUSION: t-PRK for mild-to-moderate myopia was more comfortable than conventional m-PRK; patients had less pain, and faster healing time.
Authors: Mustafa Eliaçik; Huseyin Bayramlar; Sevil K Erdur; Yunus Karabela; Goktug Demirci; Ibrahim G Gulkilik; Mustafa Ozsutcu Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Alexander Harold Rodriguez; Virgilio Galvis; Alejandro Tello; Margarita María Parra; Marcela Ángela Rojas; Mosquera Samuel Arba; Anthony Paul Camacho Journal: Rom J Ophthalmol Date: 2020 Apr-Jun
Authors: Ashraf M Bakhsh; Shaaban A M Elwan; Ahsan A Chaudhry; Tamer M El-Atris; Taghleb M Al-Howish Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 1.909