Epithelial thickness mapping: mechanical photorefractive keratectomy versus transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy

Aim The aim of this study was to compare mechanical photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) to transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (tPRK), used to correct mild and moderate myopia, with respect to the epithelial thickness mapping (ETM). Setting The study was carried out at Al-Mashreq Eye Center, C...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ahmed F El-Shahed, Reem F El-Shahed, Karim A Gaballah
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2022-01-01
Series:Delta Journal of Ophthalmology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.djo.eg.net/article.asp?issn=1110-9173;year=2022;volume=23;issue=4;spage=226;epage=233;aulast=El-Shahed
_version_ 1828166768726638592
author Ahmed F El-Shahed
Reem F El-Shahed
Karim A Gaballah
author_facet Ahmed F El-Shahed
Reem F El-Shahed
Karim A Gaballah
author_sort Ahmed F El-Shahed
collection DOAJ
description Aim The aim of this study was to compare mechanical photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) to transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (tPRK), used to correct mild and moderate myopia, with respect to the epithelial thickness mapping (ETM). Setting The study was carried out at Al-Mashreq Eye Center, Cairo, Egypt. Patients and methods This is a prospective comparative study that was carried out on 20 myopic patients (40 eyes), with spherical equivalent (SE) ranging from −1.0 to −5.0 D. The cases were divided into two groups: group A included the right eyes (OD) of all patients, and group B included the left eyes (OS). Group A underwent mechanical PRK using ‘hockey stick’ and excimer laser, using Mel-90 excimer laser with 250 Hz mode, and 0.7-mm spot scanning. Group B underwent tPRK using Mel-90 (8-mm lamellar ablation for 55 μm, 250 Hz). Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), manifest refraction, and ETM using AngioVue spectral domain optical coherence tomography systems were performed. The ETM was measured preoperatively and at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months postoperatively. In addition, postoperative pain was assessed. Results The median preoperative UCVA was 0.3 (range, 0.2–0.4) in both eyes (OU), whereas the median preoperative best-corrected visual acuity was 1 (range, 0.8–1). There was a statistically significant increase in UCVA across the postoperative period in both groups (P<0.001). The median UCVA improved to 0.5 (OU) after 1 week, and to 0.9 (OD) and 1.0 (OS) after 1 month and remained almost the same at 3 months postoperatively. There was a statistically significant decrease in SE at all points of the follow-up period in both groups (P<0.001). A slight change in SE was observed between the first and third month postoperatively in both groups, which was statistically insignificant. Patients reported postoperative pain on the first postoperative day, which was more in the tPRK group. There was a statistically significant change in epithelial thickness across the study period in both groups (P<0.001). The ETM showed a faster epithelial regeneration in group B, which was statistically significant at 1 week postoperatively (P=0.004). The epithelial thickness continued to increase in both groups to reach almost the preoperative value at the third month postoperatively. All cases that showed postoperative haze were less than grade 1.0 (Hanna’s scale). Conclusion Mechanical PRK and tPRK provided very similar results 3 months postoperatively. Both procedures were predictable, effective, and safe. The patients reported postoperative pain on the first postoperative day that was more in the tPRK group. The tPRK group expressed a faster epithelial regeneration than the PRK group at 1 week postoperatively. However, at 3 months postoperatively, the corneal epithelium reached an almost normal thickness in both groups. Visual recovery was noted to be faster in the tPRK group.
first_indexed 2024-04-12T02:06:55Z
format Article
id doaj.art-5d11c04ee7c84248b808b82b76c6ae2c
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1110-9173
2090-4835
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-12T02:06:55Z
publishDate 2022-01-01
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
record_format Article
series Delta Journal of Ophthalmology
spelling doaj.art-5d11c04ee7c84248b808b82b76c6ae2c2022-12-22T03:52:30ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsDelta Journal of Ophthalmology1110-91732090-48352022-01-0123422623310.4103/djo.djo_48_22Epithelial thickness mapping: mechanical photorefractive keratectomy versus transepithelial photorefractive keratectomyAhmed F El-ShahedReem F El-ShahedKarim A GaballahAim The aim of this study was to compare mechanical photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) to transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (tPRK), used to correct mild and moderate myopia, with respect to the epithelial thickness mapping (ETM). Setting The study was carried out at Al-Mashreq Eye Center, Cairo, Egypt. Patients and methods This is a prospective comparative study that was carried out on 20 myopic patients (40 eyes), with spherical equivalent (SE) ranging from −1.0 to −5.0 D. The cases were divided into two groups: group A included the right eyes (OD) of all patients, and group B included the left eyes (OS). Group A underwent mechanical PRK using ‘hockey stick’ and excimer laser, using Mel-90 excimer laser with 250 Hz mode, and 0.7-mm spot scanning. Group B underwent tPRK using Mel-90 (8-mm lamellar ablation for 55 μm, 250 Hz). Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), manifest refraction, and ETM using AngioVue spectral domain optical coherence tomography systems were performed. The ETM was measured preoperatively and at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months postoperatively. In addition, postoperative pain was assessed. Results The median preoperative UCVA was 0.3 (range, 0.2–0.4) in both eyes (OU), whereas the median preoperative best-corrected visual acuity was 1 (range, 0.8–1). There was a statistically significant increase in UCVA across the postoperative period in both groups (P<0.001). The median UCVA improved to 0.5 (OU) after 1 week, and to 0.9 (OD) and 1.0 (OS) after 1 month and remained almost the same at 3 months postoperatively. There was a statistically significant decrease in SE at all points of the follow-up period in both groups (P<0.001). A slight change in SE was observed between the first and third month postoperatively in both groups, which was statistically insignificant. Patients reported postoperative pain on the first postoperative day, which was more in the tPRK group. There was a statistically significant change in epithelial thickness across the study period in both groups (P<0.001). The ETM showed a faster epithelial regeneration in group B, which was statistically significant at 1 week postoperatively (P=0.004). The epithelial thickness continued to increase in both groups to reach almost the preoperative value at the third month postoperatively. All cases that showed postoperative haze were less than grade 1.0 (Hanna’s scale). Conclusion Mechanical PRK and tPRK provided very similar results 3 months postoperatively. Both procedures were predictable, effective, and safe. The patients reported postoperative pain on the first postoperative day that was more in the tPRK group. The tPRK group expressed a faster epithelial regeneration than the PRK group at 1 week postoperatively. However, at 3 months postoperatively, the corneal epithelium reached an almost normal thickness in both groups. Visual recovery was noted to be faster in the tPRK group.http://www.djo.eg.net/article.asp?issn=1110-9173;year=2022;volume=23;issue=4;spage=226;epage=233;aulast=El-Shahedmyopiaphotorefractive keratectomytransepithelial photorefractive keratectomy
spellingShingle Ahmed F El-Shahed
Reem F El-Shahed
Karim A Gaballah
Epithelial thickness mapping: mechanical photorefractive keratectomy versus transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy
Delta Journal of Ophthalmology
myopia
photorefractive keratectomy
transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy
title Epithelial thickness mapping: mechanical photorefractive keratectomy versus transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy
title_full Epithelial thickness mapping: mechanical photorefractive keratectomy versus transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy
title_fullStr Epithelial thickness mapping: mechanical photorefractive keratectomy versus transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy
title_full_unstemmed Epithelial thickness mapping: mechanical photorefractive keratectomy versus transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy
title_short Epithelial thickness mapping: mechanical photorefractive keratectomy versus transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy
title_sort epithelial thickness mapping mechanical photorefractive keratectomy versus transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy
topic myopia
photorefractive keratectomy
transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy
url http://www.djo.eg.net/article.asp?issn=1110-9173;year=2022;volume=23;issue=4;spage=226;epage=233;aulast=El-Shahed
work_keys_str_mv AT ahmedfelshahed epithelialthicknessmappingmechanicalphotorefractivekeratectomyversustransepithelialphotorefractivekeratectomy
AT reemfelshahed epithelialthicknessmappingmechanicalphotorefractivekeratectomyversustransepithelialphotorefractivekeratectomy
AT karimagaballah epithelialthicknessmappingmechanicalphotorefractivekeratectomyversustransepithelialphotorefractivekeratectomy