Transepitheliale photorefraktive Keratektomie

Ortueta, Diego de; Rüden, Dennis von

doi:10.1007/s00347-018-0814-x

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent reports using the same laser platform [35], as well as our own experience [49] using surface ablation with this laser and this cohort, found refractive stability after surface ablation from 6 weeks to 3 months postoperatively.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Comparison of Refractive and Visual Outcomes after Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy (TransPRK) in Low versus Moderate Myopia

Ortueta¹,

Rüden²,

Arba-Mosquera

2021

Photonics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is it possible to obtain good results in myopia of 2 or fewer diopters (D) with transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (TransPRK) changing the optical zone and epithelium thickness? We retrospectively analyzed two groups of 296 eyes with a minimum follow-up of 4 months. Group A had 2 or less D, treated with an optical zone (OZ) 0.2 mm bigger than recommended, and a central epithelium thickness of 60 microns, and group B had 2 D to 5 D, with the recommended optical zone, and a 55-micron epithelium ablation at the center. The outcomes were not different between the two myopic ranges; the postop uncorrected distance visual acuity was 20/20 ± 4 in both groups (p = 0.2), which was −0.3 ± 0.8 lines worse than the preoperative corrected distance visual acuity in both groups (p = 0.5). The safety of the treatments resulted in a change of 0.0 ± 0.7 lines in the low myopia group, versus a gain of +0.1 ± 0.8 lines in the moderate myopia group (p = 0.1). The deviation from the intended target was −0.04 ± 0.33 D in the low myopia group and +0.07 ± 0.32 D in the moderate myopia group (p < 0.0001); the postoperative spherical equivalent was 0.00 ± 0.33 D in the low myopia group and +0.10 ± 0.31 D in the moderate myopia group (p < 0.0001). The postop refractive astigmatism was 0.32 ± 0.16 D in both groups (p = 0.5). In conclusion, the refractive and visual outcomes after TransPRK are comparable in low myopia changing the optical zone and epithelium thickness versus moderate myopia with standard optical zone and epithelium thickness.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Comparison of Refractive and Visual Outcomes after Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy (TransPRK) in Low versus Moderate Myopia

Ortueta¹,

Rüden²,

Arba-Mosquera

2021

Photonics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The epithelial ablation profile assumes a gradual increase in epithelial thickness from the central to peripheral areas of the ablation zone and is slightly greater than the normal epithelium, in order to reduce the risk of incomplete epithelial removal and minimise any consequences relating to variability in the patient epithelial thickness map. The positive outcomes and clinical experiences on this platform are described by Ortueta et al [ 44 ]. There is no interruption between epithelial and stromal ablations, which reduces treatment time.…”

Section: Transprk Platformsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy—Review

Way,

Elghobaier,

Nanavaty

2024

Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Surface ablation procedures such as photorefractive keratomileusis (PRK) variants involve the removal of the epithelium, followed by ablation of Bowman’s layer and the anterior corneal tissue [ 1 ]. In the transepithelial photorefractive keratomileusis (Trans-PRK) technique, both the initial surface ablation and the subsequent stromal ablation are created using the same high-precision UV excimer laser [ 3 , 4 ]. Comparatively, excepting mostly hyperopia, high myopia, and astigmatism, both the newer Trans-PRK or the established LASIK technique can produce the required surgical correction, sparking the question of which technique should be opted for.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy versus Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis

Curcă,

Tătaru,

Sima

et al. 2024

Diagnostics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background: Laser-assisted refractive surgery is a safe and effective surgical correction of refractive error. For most patients, both the newer Trans-PRK and the established LASIK technique can produce the required surgical correction, sparking the question of which technique should be opted for. (2) Methods: The study prospectively evaluated 121 patients (230 eyes) for at least one month postoperatively; 66 patients (126 eyes) and 45 patients (85 eyes) returned for 6 months and 1 year follow-up. (3) Results: No statistical difference was recorded at 1 week or 1 month post-operation. At 6 months, a difference was found for spherical diopters (Trans-PRK −0.0476 ± 0.7012 versus FS-LASIK +0.425 ± 0.874, p = 0.004) and spherical equivalent (Trans-PRK −0.1994 ± 0.0294 versus FS-LASIK +0.225 ± 0.646, p = 0.025) but not for CYL D (Trans-PRK −0.3036 ± 0.5251 versus FS-LASIK −0.4 ± 0.820, p = 0.499). Uncorrected visual acuity was better for Trans-PRK 6 months post-operation (UCVA logMAR 0.02523 versus 0.0768 logMAR; p = 0.015 logMAR). At 1-year, Trans-PRK was favored for spherical diopters (Trans-PRK −0.0294 ± 0.6493 versus FS-LASIK +0.646 ± 0.909, p < 0.001) and spherical equivalent (Trans-PRK −0.218 ± 0.784 versus FS-LASIK 0.372 ± 1.08, p = 0.007). Overall speed in visual recovery, variance of results and surgically induced astigmatism were in favor of Trans-PRK. (4) Conclusions: The study reported improvements for Trans-PRK patients, with both techniques found to be safe and effective.

show abstract

Transepitheliale photorefraktive Keratektomie

Cited by 10 publications

References 29 publications

Comparison of Refractive and Visual Outcomes after Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy (TransPRK) in Low versus Moderate Myopia

Comparison of Refractive and Visual Outcomes after Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy (TransPRK) in Low versus Moderate Myopia

Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy—Review

Advances in Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy versus Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About