Comparison of Clinical Results between Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy and Brush Photorefractive Keratectomy.
10.3341/jkos.2014.55.9.1284
- Author:
Hyunseung KANG
1
;
Chul Myong CHOE
;
Tae Hoon CHOI
;
Se Kyung KIM
Author Information
1. Nune Eye Hospital, Seoul, Korea. sekyungkim@naver.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Brush-assisted photorefractive keratectomy;
Epithelial healing time;
Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy
- MeSH:
Humans;
Myopia;
Photorefractive Keratectomy*;
Postoperative Complications;
Re-Epithelialization;
Visual Acuity
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
2014;55(9):1284-1290
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To compare the results of transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (trans PRK) and brush-assisted photorefractive keratectomy (brush PRK) for the treatment of myopia. METHODS: A total of 146 eyes from 78 patients who received brush PRK or trans PRK with the Schwind Amaris laser platform were included in the present study. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) at postoperative 1 week, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months were compared between the 2 groups as well as epithelial healing time. RESULTS: The mean time to complete epithelial healing was 3.27 +/- 0.75 days in the trans PRK group and 3.67 +/- 0.93 days in the brush PRK group (P < 0.05). At 1 week after surgery, UDVA recovered more rapidly after trans PRK than brush PRK (brush PRK: 0.13 +/- 0.12 log MAR units, trans PRK: 0.09 +/- 0.08 log MAR units, P < 0.05), however, UDVA was not significantly different at 1, 3, 6, and, 12 months postoperatively between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Re-epithelialization and visual recovery were faster in the trans PRK group while visual outcome and postoperative complications were equivalent to the brush PRK group.
