Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Source
      Source
      Clear All
      Source
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
1 result(s) for "repeat PRK"
Sort by:
Repeat Versus Primary Photorefractive Keratectomy for Treatment of Myopia
Although effective, a portion of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) patients will suffer residual myopia or relapse to myopic regression. This retrospective, non-randomized, comparative study, aimed to compare the efficacy of primary PRK versus PRK performed as retreatment after previous surgery for myopia. Data regarding the right eye of 220 consecutive myopic patients undergoing repeat or primary PRK in 2013–2017 were extracted. Groups were matched for demographics and preoperative spherical equivalent, sphere, astigmatism, uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and CDVA). Primary outcomes were an efficacy index (ratio between the postoperative UDVA and the preoperative CDVA), a safety index (ratio between the postoperative and the preoperative CDVA), postoperative UDVA and CDVA, and deviation from target refraction. Primary PRK showed significant superiority in logMAR UDVA (0.01 ± 0.05 versus 0.05 ± 0.10, p = 0.001), logMAR CDVA (0.01 ± 0.05 versus 0.04 ± 0.08, p = 0.01), efficacy index (1.00 ± 0.05 versus 0.97 ± 0.09, p = 0.003) and safety index (1.00 ± 0.06 versus 0.98 ± 0.08, p = 0.04) compared to repeat PRK, but had a significantly higher share of patients with postoperative spherical equivalent (74.5% versus 67.3%) and cylinder (74.5% versus 68.2%) in the range of ±0.5 D. To conclude, enhancement PRK leads to inferior efficacy and safety with greater deviation from target refraction. Adjusted nomograms for repeat PRK may be warranted.