Laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy versus photorefractive keratectomy for the correction of myopia. A prospective comparative study.
ABSTRACT To compare the early postoperative visual rehabilitation after laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for the correction of myopia.
CODET Aris Vision Institute, Tijuana, Mexico.
This prospective study included 50 eyes of 25 patients with myopia who received LASEK in 1 eye and PRK in the contralateral eye. Excimer laser corneal ablation was done using the Nidek EC-5000 excimer laser. Patients were seen at 1 and 3 days, 1 week, and 1 month. Discomfort, subjective uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), objective UCVA, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), corneal clarity (haze), and time for corneal reepithelialization were analyzed.
Seventy-two percent and 80% of the LASEK eyes had more discomfort at 1 day and 3 days, respectively. Eighty percent and 96% of the PRK eyes had better subjective UCVA at 1 day and 3 days, respectively. Corneas were fully reepithelialized at a mean of 3.3 days +/- 0.5 (SD) and 3.6 +/- 0.5 days in the PRK and LASEK groups, respectively. At 1 month, the UCVA was similar in both groups; no eye had lost lines of BCVA or developed haze.
Both LASEK and PRK were effective and safe procedures in the surgical correction of myopia at the 1-month postoperative visit. Patients reported less discomfort and better visual acuity in their PRK eye during the early postoperative period. Patients should be informed that LASEK, whose acronym is similar to that of laser in situ keratomileusis, has a recovery speed that is similar to that of surface laser refractive procedures such as PRK.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Correction of refractive errors can be achieved with spectacles, contact lenses, and refractive surgery. The past decade has seen a surge in the availability of alternatives for patients and surgeons in terms of both surgical and nonsurgical options for the management of refractive errors. Newer generation contact lenses provide enhanced safety and better handling, whereas modern-day refractive surgery presents a plethora of choices based on the clinical characteristics and requirements of patients. We have moved from an era of "one size fits all" to a purely customized way of treating patients with refractive errors. This review presents the background, advantages, and disadvantages of the two most commonly used options for correction of ametropia, ie, contact lenses and refractive surgery.Clinical Optometry. 01/2011; 3:63-72.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To compare the visual outcomes and complications of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) with those of surface treatment by laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK), photorefractive keratectomy with mechanical epithelial removal (M-PRK), and transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (T-PRK). Tertiary care eye center. This retrospective review comprised all cases of LASIK, LASEK, M-PRK, and T-PRK performed at King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital between July 1, 2004, and June 30, 2005. Separate statistical analyses were performed for eyes with low to moderate myopia (spherical equivalent [SE] less than -6.00 diopters [D]) and high myopia (SE -6.00 to -11.25 D). Of 696 eyes that met the inclusion criteria, 464 had LASIK, 104 had LASEK, 69 had M-PRK, and 59 had T-PRK. Eyes with low to moderate myopia had a statistically significantly smaller mean difference between logMAR final postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) and preoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) after T-PRK and M-PRK than after LASIK or LASEK. A higher percentage of eyes with high myopia had a final UCVA within +/-2 lines of the preoperative BSCVA with T-PRK than with LASIK, LASEK, or M-PRK. There were more major non-flap-related complications after LASEK than after LASIK, M-PRK, or T-PRK. In eyes with low to moderate myopia, T-PRK and M-PRK provided slightly better visual outcomes than LASIK or LASEK. In eyes with high myopia, T-PRK provided better visual outcomes than LASIK, LASEK, and M-PRK. Laser in situ keratomileusis was associated with the most major postoperative complications.Journal of Cataract [?] Refractive Surgery 01/2008; 33(12):2041-8. · 2.26 Impact Factor
Article: Epithelial healing and clinical outcomes in excimer laser photorefractive surgery following three epithelial removal techniques: mechanical, alcohol, and excimer laser.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate epithelial healing, postoperative pain, and visual and refractive outcomes after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) using three epithelial removal techniques. Prospective, nonrandomized, comparative trial. Department of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine and Balgensesang Ophthalmology Clinic, Seoul, Korea. For the PRK procedure, the corneal epithelium was removed in one of three ways: mechanically (conventional PRK [PRK]) in 88 eyes of 44 patients; using excimer laser (transepithelial PRK [tPRK]) in 106 eyes of 53 patients; or using 20% diluted alcohol, laser-assisted subepithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) in 106 eyes of 53 patients. Epithelial healing, postoperative pain, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), and remaining refractive error. The mean postoperative pain scores were 4.84 +/- 1.45 for PRK, 4.71 +/- 1.62 for tPRK, and 4.63 +/- 1.52 for LASEK (P = .125). The mean epithelial healing rates were 12.3 +/- 4.6 for PRK, 15.2 +/- 4.9 for tPRK, and 18.1 +/- 5.2 mm2/day for LASEK (P < .001). The postoperative 6-month remaining mean spherical equivalents (diopters) were -0.46 +/- 1.01 for PRK, 0.18 +/- 0.91 for tPRK, and -0.82 +/- 1.18 for LASEK (P = .01). The LASEK group showed less favorable UCVA than other groups. There was no significant difference in BSCVA between the groups. Postoperative pain, subepithelial opacity and BSCVA were similar regardless of the epithelial removal procedure. A faster epithelial healing rate did not result in better visual or refractive outcomes. Using the same nomogram, tPRK resulted in a slight overcorrection, and LASEK resulted in a slight undercorrection.American Journal of Ophthalmology 02/2005; 139(1):56-63. · 4.22 Impact Factor