Comparing visual outcomes and dry eye symptoms between transepithelial and alcohol-assisted photorefractive keratectomy (PRK)

Session Details

Session Title: Surface Photoablation

Session Date/Time: Monday 12/09/2016 | 14:30-16:30

Paper Time: 15:45

Venue: Hall C1

First Author: : M.Ghoreishi IRAN

Co Author(s): :                        

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To compare postoperative efficacy, safety, predictability and dry eye symptoms between 2 groups of patients with myopia and astigmatism, undergoing PRK with tow different techniques, trans-epithelial (te-PRK) versus alcohol-assisted (aa-PRK).

Setting:

Isfahan Medical School and Persian Eye Clinic, Isfahan, Iran.

Methods:

In this retrospective study we evaluated 200 eyes of 100 consecutive patients with low to moderate myopia and low astigmatism who underwent te-PRK or aa-PRK. In each group 100 eyes (50 patients) were included. Age, visual acuity and refraction were matched between tow groups. All patients were treated with Aberration- free ablation profile. At 6 months post operation, efficacy, predictability, safety as well as dry eye symptoms, using ocular surface disease index (OSDI) questionnaire were measured and compared between the groups. Paired t tests were applied for statistics.

Results:

Preoperative sphere, cylinder and spherical equivalent were -2.40 ± 1.43, -0.88± 0.79 and -2.84± 1.27 Dioptes (D) in te-PRK group and were -2.49 ± 1.35, -0.87± 0.85 and -2.98± 1.33D in aa-PRK group respectively. After operation, 100% and 99% of eyes in te-PRK and aa-PRK groups achieved an uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 0.1 logarithm of maximal angle of resolution (logMAR) or better. Mean refractive spherical equivalent was -0.01 D ±0.27(SD) and -0.16 ± 0.28 D, respectively (p= 0.006). Tow eyes in aa-PRK lost 1 or more lines of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA). No eye in te-PRK lost CDVA. OSDI scores were 15.08 ±8.05 for te- PRK and 15.58± 9.14 for aa-PRK, (P = 0.125).

Conclusions:

Both procedures are effective, predictable and safe for correction of myopia and astigmatism. But significant differences were detected in both the visual outcomes and the refractive results between tow groups, which was in favor of te-PRK. Dry eye symptoms were similar between both groups.

Financial Disclosure:

NONE