Eye (London, England) · 2022
Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy: a prospective randomized comparative study between the two-step and the single-step techniques.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Abdel-Radi Mahmoud, Shehata Mohamed, Mostafa Magdi Mohammad, Aly Mohamed Omar M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the six-month outcome of the two-step transepithelial phototherapeutic keratectomy- photorefractive keratectomy (PTK-PRK) and the single-step transepithelial PRK for myopia and myopic astigmatism.
METHODS: A prospective randomized study. The study enrolled 100 eyes of 50 patients with mild to moderate myopia or myopic astigmatism stratified into two groups, PTK-PRK (n = 50 eyes) and single step PRK (n = 50 eyes). Primary outcome measures were visual acuity and manifest refraction. Secondary outcome measures were epithelial healing duration, post-PRK pain scores and 3-month postoperative haze grading.
RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics were similar in both groups (p value > 0.05). The mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at 1 week, 1 month, 3 and 6 months was significantly better in the single-step PRK group than in the two-step PTK-PRK group (p < 0.001). The mean manifest sphere, cylinder and spherical equivalent showed a significant difference at all follow up visits in favour of the single-step PRK (p value < 0.001). Epithelial healing duration was faster in single-step PRK (p value < 0.001). Pain scores were significantly lower following single-step PRK at 8 h, 1 day, 3 days (p value < 0.001) but were similar at the 7th day. Haze scores showed no statistical difference between the two groups at 3-month follow-up.
CONCLUSION: The two transepithelial PRK techniques were effective in correcting mild to moderate myopia and myopic astigmatism. However, Single-step transepithelial PRK achieved faster visual recovery, better refractive outcome and shorter epithelial healing time with less post-PRK pain.
CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: (Clinical Trials.gov Identifier): NCT04710082.
METHODS: A prospective randomized study. The study enrolled 100 eyes of 50 patients with mild to moderate myopia or myopic astigmatism stratified into two groups, PTK-PRK (n = 50 eyes) and single step PRK (n = 50 eyes). Primary outcome measures were visual acuity and manifest refraction. Secondary outcome measures were epithelial healing duration, post-PRK pain scores and 3-month postoperative haze grading.
RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics were similar in both groups (p value > 0.05). The mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at 1 week, 1 month, 3 and 6 months was significantly better in the single-step PRK group than in the two-step PTK-PRK group (p < 0.001). The mean manifest sphere, cylinder and spherical equivalent showed a significant difference at all follow up visits in favour of the single-step PRK (p value < 0.001). Epithelial healing duration was faster in single-step PRK (p value < 0.001). Pain scores were significantly lower following single-step PRK at 8 h, 1 day, 3 days (p value < 0.001) but were similar at the 7th day. Haze scores showed no statistical difference between the two groups at 3-month follow-up.
CONCLUSION: The two transepithelial PRK techniques were effective in correcting mild to moderate myopia and myopic astigmatism. However, Single-step transepithelial PRK achieved faster visual recovery, better refractive outcome and shorter epithelial healing time with less post-PRK pain.
CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: (Clinical Trials.gov Identifier): NCT04710082.