{"title":"Mechanical vs. Laser Epithelial Removal in the Treatment of Post-PRK Haze","authors":"Jorge Castanera","doi":"10.1016/S0955-3681(13)80036-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><strong>OBJECTIVES:</strong> To assess the efficacy of secondary photorefractive keratectomy in the treatment of corneal haze, comparing the results obtained with 2 methods of treatment: group A, mechanical removal of the epithelium followed by ablation with scanning system; group B, laser ablation of epithelium and large area ablation. <strong>MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:</strong> Regression rate, best corrected visual acuity, haze. <strong>RESULTS:</strong> Regression was higher in group A achieving only 21.63% of the attempted correction, while in group B we obtained a 97.37% correction. Haze was nearly unchanged in group A (from a mean value of 1.69 preoperatively to 1.63 postoperatively), while it improved in group B from 1.71 preoperatively to 0.5 postoperatively. <strong>CONCLUSIONS:</strong> Laser removal of the epithelium and large area ablation seems to be a safer and more effective method for treating corneal haze than manual debridement and scanning ablation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100500,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Implant and Refractive Surgery","volume":"7 4","pages":"Pages 210-213"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0955-3681(13)80036-6","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Implant and Refractive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955368113800366","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
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of secondary photorefractive keratectomy in the treatment of corneal haze, comparing the results obtained with 2 methods of treatment: group A, mechanical removal of the epithelium followed by ablation with scanning system; group B, laser ablation of epithelium and large area ablation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Regression rate, best corrected visual acuity, haze. RESULTS: Regression was higher in group A achieving only 21.63% of the attempted correction, while in group B we obtained a 97.37% correction. Haze was nearly unchanged in group A (from a mean value of 1.69 preoperatively to 1.63 postoperatively), while it improved in group B from 1.71 preoperatively to 0.5 postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Laser removal of the epithelium and large area ablation seems to be a safer and more effective method for treating corneal haze than manual debridement and scanning ablation.