Zarei-Ghanavati Siamak, Shandiz Javad Heravian, Abrishami Mojtaba, Karimpour Maliheh
Eye Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Department of Optometry, School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
J Curr Ophthalmol. 2019 Jan 23;31(2):135-141. doi: 10.1016/j.joco.2019.01.003. eCollection 2019 Jun.
To compare clinical outcomes between mechanical debridement photorefractive keratectomy (m-PRK) and trans-epithelial photorefractive keratectomy (t-PRK) in myopic patients.
Eighty eyes of 40 myopic patients with age between 18 and 55 years were included in this study. In each patient, one eye was randomly assigned for t-PRK, using the Amaris laser's ORK-CAM software and the other eye for m-PRK, using a spatula. Stromal ablation was done by Schwind Amaris 750S. Uncorrected and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), refractive outcomes, epithelial healing, pain, and discomfort were compared between the groups on day 1, 3, 7 and month 1, 3, and 6.
Preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) were -3.97 ± 2.08 diopter (D) and -3.98 ± 2.06 D in m-PRK and t-PRK eyes, respectively ( = 0.981). Operation time was significantly shorter in the t-PRK group than m-PRK ( < 0.001). Postoperative pain was experienced significantly higher in the t-PRK group measured by 11-point numeric scale of pain questionnaire on the first postoperative day ( < 0.001). Photophobia, tearing, and vision fluctuation were also significantly higher in the t-PRK group postoperatively. However epithelial defect size and re-epithelialization time were lower in the t-PRK group ( = 0.012 and < 0.001, respectively). Postoperative parameters including SE, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and contrast acuity did not show any significant difference between the two groups during all intervals.
Although epithelial defect size and epithelial healing time were lower in t-PRK, postoperative pain, photophobia, and vision fluctuation were significantly less in the m-PRK group in the first postoperative days. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups after one week, and both mechanical and trans-epithelial techniques were shown to be safe and effective.
比较机械性准分子原位角膜磨镶术(m-PRK)和经上皮准分子原位角膜磨镶术(t-PRK)治疗近视患者的临床效果。
本研究纳入40例年龄在18至55岁之间的近视患者的80只眼。在每位患者中,一只眼随机分配接受使用阿玛里斯激光的ORK-CAM软件进行的t-PRK治疗,另一只眼使用刮铲进行m-PRK治疗。基质消融由施温德阿玛里斯750S完成。在第1天、第3天、第7天以及第1个月、第3个月和第6个月,比较两组患者的裸眼视力和最佳矫正视力(BCVA)、屈光结果、上皮愈合情况、疼痛和不适程度。
m-PRK组和t-PRK组术前等效球镜度(SE)分别为-3.97±2.08屈光度(D)和-3.98±2.06 D(P = 0.981)。t-PRK组的手术时间明显短于m-PRK组(P < 0.001)。术后第1天,通过11点疼痛数字量表测量,t-PRK组的术后疼痛明显更严重(P < 0.001)。t-PRK组术后畏光、流泪和视力波动也明显更严重。然而,t-PRK组的上皮缺损大小和再上皮化时间更低(分别为P = 0.012和P < 0.001)。在所有随访期间,两组的术后参数包括SE、裸眼远视力(UDVA)、矫正远视力(CDVA)和对比敏感度均无显著差异。
尽管t-PRK组的上皮缺损大小和上皮愈合时间更低,但在术后早期,m-PRK组的术后疼痛、畏光和视力波动明显更少。术后一周两组之间无统计学显著差异,且机械性和经上皮技术均显示安全有效。