Clinical outcomes after alcohol assisted photorefractive keratectomy versus excimer laser assisted epithelial removal photorefractive keratectomy

Srinivasa Kh, Maganty V, Kumar Kk, Babu Gs
{"title":"Clinical outcomes after alcohol assisted photorefractive keratectomy versus excimer laser assisted epithelial removal photorefractive keratectomy","authors":"Srinivasa Kh, Maganty V, Kumar Kk, Babu Gs","doi":"10.17727/jmsr.2022/10-27","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Surface ablation methods as a method of refractive surgery is making a comeback considering its safety, efficacy and the ease of doing the surgery. Various techniques of epithelial debridement in photorefractive keratectomy were described, like mechanical debridement, using 20% alcohol, using excimer laser or using a rotating brush. This study compares two methods of epithelial removal, namely alcohol assisted and excimer laser assisted in patients undergoing photorefractive keratectomy. Material and methods: A prospective, randomized, interventional study in a tertiary care centre. A total of 50 patients were enrolled, after subjecting them to various test including a detailed history, ocular examination and pentacam. The patients selected were then divided into 2 groups using a randomization software, and the surgery was performed on the de novo eyes. Analysis was done using descriptive statistics namely mean, standard deviation, percentage. Student t test and chi square test was used for the analysis of the data, wherever applicable. Results: The baseline best corrected visual acuity was 0.03 ± 0.0 in the alcohol assisted photorefractive keratectomy group and 0.03 ± 0.08 in the excimer laser assisted epithelial removal photorefractive keratectomy group. At the end of 6 months, all the patients had a visual acuity of 0.00 on logmar scale. Corneal haze noticed on post-operative day one was 0.98 ± 0.09 in the alcohol assisted photorefractive keratectomy group and 0.94 ± 0.1 in the excimer laser assisted group. No corneal haze was found at the end of one week. Pain scale analysis showed that it was 3.08 ± 0.80 in the alcohol assisted photorefractive keratectomy group and 2.9 ± 0.1 in the excimer laser assisted epithelial removal photorefractive keratectomy group which was not statistically significant. There was no pain at the end of one week. Conclusion: Various modes of epithelium removal have evolved over time. The two methods of epithelial removal here have similar outcomes in visual outcome, corneal haze and pain, with a good safety margin.","PeriodicalId":32890,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical and Scientific Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical and Scientific Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17727/jmsr.2022/10-27","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Surface ablation methods as a method of refractive surgery is making a comeback considering its safety, efficacy and the ease of doing the surgery. Various techniques of epithelial debridement in photorefractive keratectomy were described, like mechanical debridement, using 20% alcohol, using excimer laser or using a rotating brush. This study compares two methods of epithelial removal, namely alcohol assisted and excimer laser assisted in patients undergoing photorefractive keratectomy. Material and methods: A prospective, randomized, interventional study in a tertiary care centre. A total of 50 patients were enrolled, after subjecting them to various test including a detailed history, ocular examination and pentacam. The patients selected were then divided into 2 groups using a randomization software, and the surgery was performed on the de novo eyes. Analysis was done using descriptive statistics namely mean, standard deviation, percentage. Student t test and chi square test was used for the analysis of the data, wherever applicable. Results: The baseline best corrected visual acuity was 0.03 ± 0.0 in the alcohol assisted photorefractive keratectomy group and 0.03 ± 0.08 in the excimer laser assisted epithelial removal photorefractive keratectomy group. At the end of 6 months, all the patients had a visual acuity of 0.00 on logmar scale. Corneal haze noticed on post-operative day one was 0.98 ± 0.09 in the alcohol assisted photorefractive keratectomy group and 0.94 ± 0.1 in the excimer laser assisted group. No corneal haze was found at the end of one week. Pain scale analysis showed that it was 3.08 ± 0.80 in the alcohol assisted photorefractive keratectomy group and 2.9 ± 0.1 in the excimer laser assisted epithelial removal photorefractive keratectomy group which was not statistically significant. There was no pain at the end of one week. Conclusion: Various modes of epithelium removal have evolved over time. The two methods of epithelial removal here have similar outcomes in visual outcome, corneal haze and pain, with a good safety margin.
酒精辅助屈光性角膜切除术与准分子激光辅助上皮切除术的临床疗效
背景:表面消融术作为一种屈光手术方法,考虑到其安全性、有效性和手术简便性,正在卷土重来。描述了光折变角膜切除术中上皮清创术的各种技术,如机械清创术、使用20%酒精、使用准分子激光或使用旋转刷。本研究比较了两种上皮切除方法,即酒精辅助和准分子激光辅助治疗屈光性角膜切削术患者。材料和方法:一项在三级护理中心进行的前瞻性、随机、介入性研究。共有50名患者被纳入研究,他们接受了各种测试,包括详细的病史、眼部检查和pentacam。然后使用随机化软件将所选患者分为2组,并对新生眼进行手术。使用描述性统计数据进行分析,即平均值、标准差、百分比。在适用的情况下,使用学生t检验和卡方检验对数据进行分析。结果:酒精辅助屈光性角膜切除术组的基线最佳矫正视力为0.03±0.0,准分子激光辅助上皮切除术组为0.03±0.08。6个月结束时,所有患者的logmar视力均为0.00。术后第一天,酒精辅助屈光性角膜切削术组的角膜雾度为0.98±0.09,准分子激光辅助组为0.94±0.1。一周结束时未发现角膜混浊。疼痛量表分析显示,酒精辅助屈光性角膜切削术组为3.08±0.80,准分子激光辅助上皮切除术组为2.9±0.1,无统计学意义。一周结束时没有疼痛。结论:随着时间的推移,上皮细胞的去除方式也发生了变化。两种上皮切除方法在视觉效果、角膜混浊和疼痛方面具有相似的结果,具有良好的安全边际。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信