Search Results (3)

Although effective, a portion of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) patients will suffer residual myopia or relapse to myopic regression. This retrospective, non-randomized, comparative study, aimed to compare the efficacy of primary PRK versus PRK performed as retreatment after previous surgery for myopia. Data regarding the right eye of 220 consecutive myopic patients undergoing repeat or primary PRK in 2013–2017 were extracted. Groups were matched for demographics and preoperative spherical equivalent, sphere, astigmatism, uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and CDVA). Primary outcomes were an efficacy index (ratio between the postoperative UDVA and the preoperative CDVA), a safety index (ratio between the postoperative and the preoperative CDVA), postoperative UDVA and CDVA, and deviation from target refraction. Primary PRK showed significant superiority in logMAR UDVA (0.01 ± 0.05 versus 0.05 ± 0.10, p = 0.001), logMAR CDVA (0.01 ± 0.05 versus 0.04 ± 0.08, p = 0.01), efficacy index (1.00 ± 0.05 versus 0.97 ± 0.09, p = 0.003) and safety index (1.00 ± 0.06 versus 0.98 ± 0.08, p = 0.04) compared to repeat PRK, but had a significantly higher share of patients with postoperative spherical equivalent (74.5% versus 67.3%) and cylinder (74.5% versus 68.2%) in the range of ±0.5 D. To conclude, enhancement PRK leads to inferior efficacy and safety with greater deviation from target refraction. Adjusted nomograms for repeat PRK may be warranted. Full article

Background: This retrospective chart review compared the higher-order aberrations (HOAs) among photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) alongside changes in spherical equivalent (SEQ) and corneal shape (Q-value). Methods: Analyzing 371 myopic eyes, including 154 LASIK, 173 PRK, and 44 SMILE cases, Pentacam imaging was utilized pre-operatively and at one-year post-operative visits. Results: All procedures resulted in 100% of patients achieving an uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/40 or better, with 87% of LASIK and PRK, and 91% of SMILE patients having 20/20 or better. Significant increases in HOAs were observed across all procedures (p < 0.05), correlating positively with SEQ and Q-value changes (LASIK (0.686, p < 0.05), followed by PRK (0.4503, p < 0.05), and SMILE (0.386, p < 0.05)). Vertical coma and spherical aberration (SA) were the primary factors for heightened aberration magnitude among the procedures (p < 0.05), with the largest contribution in SMILE, which is likely attributed to the centration at the corneal apex. Notably, PRK showed insignificant changes in vertical coma (−0.197 µm ± 0.0168 to −0.192 µm ± 0.0198, p = 0.78), with an increase in oblique trefoil (p < 0.05). Conclusions: These findings underscore differences in HOAs among PRK, LASIK, and SMILE, helping to guide clinicians. Full article

The type and nature of refractive surgery procedures has greatly increased over the past few decades, allowing for almost all patient populations to be treated to extremely high satisfaction. Conventional photorefractive keratectomy involves the removal of the corneal epithelium through mechanical debridement or dilute alcohol instillation. An improvement to this method utilises laser epithelial removal in a single-step process termed transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (transPRK). We explore the history of transPRK from its early adoption as a two-step process, identify different transPRK platforms from major manufacturers, and describe the role of transPRK in the refractive surgery armamentarium. This is a narrative review of the literature. This review finds that TransPRK is a safe and effective procedure that works across a variety of patient populations. Though often not seen as a primary treatment option when compared to other corneal-based procedures that offer a faster and more comfortable recovery, there are many scenarios in which these procedures are not possible. These include, but are not limited to, cases of corneal instability, previous refractive surgery, or transplant where higher-order aberrations can impair vision in a manner not amenable to spectacle or contact lens correction. We discuss refinements to the procedure that would help improve outcomes, including optimising patient discomfort after surgery as well as reducing corneal haze and refractive regression. Full article