Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2015
A randomized controlled trial comparing dexamethasone with loteprednol etabonate on postoperative photorefractive keratectomy.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Thanathanee Onsiri, Sriphon Phornrak, Anutarapongpan Orapin, Athikulwongse Raweewan, Thongphiew Prakairat, Rangsin Ram, Suwan-apichon Olan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare loteprednol etabonate 0.5%/tobramycin 0.3% (Zylet(®)) with dexamethasone 0.1%/tobramycin 0.3% (Tobradex(®)) in terms of the epithelial healing time, postoperative visual acuity, corneal haziness score, and intraocular pressure (IOP) in postoperative treatment after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).
METHODS: This prospective, randomized, double-masked (participants and assessors blinded) controlled study included 32 patients who underwent PRK. The patients were allocated equally into 2 groups by block randomization to receive either loteprednol etabonate (Lot) or dexamethasone (Dex) for 1 month after the surgery. The epithelial healing time, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), corneal haziness score, and IOP were evaluated at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months.
RESULTS: The corneal epithelium was healed within 3 days in both groups; however, the epithelium was closed on the second day in 3 cases in the Lot group compared with 1 case in the Dex group. No significant differences were found for UCVA at 1 and 3 months (Fisher exact test, P>0.01). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in corneal haziness scores between the 2 groups at 1 and 3 months (Mann-Whitney U test, P>0.05). The number of patients experiencing significantly increased IOP (≥5 mmHg) from baseline at any visit for the Lot group (1/16 patients) was fewer than for the Dex group (3/16 patients).
CONCLUSIONS: Loteprednol etabonate was effective in postoperative PRK management and was significantly less likely to produce elevations in IOP than was dexamethasone.
METHODS: This prospective, randomized, double-masked (participants and assessors blinded) controlled study included 32 patients who underwent PRK. The patients were allocated equally into 2 groups by block randomization to receive either loteprednol etabonate (Lot) or dexamethasone (Dex) for 1 month after the surgery. The epithelial healing time, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), corneal haziness score, and IOP were evaluated at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months.
RESULTS: The corneal epithelium was healed within 3 days in both groups; however, the epithelium was closed on the second day in 3 cases in the Lot group compared with 1 case in the Dex group. No significant differences were found for UCVA at 1 and 3 months (Fisher exact test, P>0.01). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in corneal haziness scores between the 2 groups at 1 and 3 months (Mann-Whitney U test, P>0.05). The number of patients experiencing significantly increased IOP (≥5 mmHg) from baseline at any visit for the Lot group (1/16 patients) was fewer than for the Dex group (3/16 patients).
CONCLUSIONS: Loteprednol etabonate was effective in postoperative PRK management and was significantly less likely to produce elevations in IOP than was dexamethasone.