4.4 Article

Photorefractive keratectomy for treatment of flap complications in laser in situ keratomileusis

Journal

CORNEA
Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages 399-404

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00003226-200307000-00002

Keywords

laser in situ keratomileusis; flap complications; phototherapeutic keratectomy; photorefractive keratectomy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. To present the results of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for treatment of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) flap complications. Methods. Compilation of case reports through solicitation on Kera-net, an Internet surgery discussion site. Results. PRK was performed on 13 patients from 2 weeks to 6 months after LASIK flap complications. The technique used for the PRK varied. Epithelial removal was per-formed using no-touch phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK) in six of the 13 patients and manual debridement in the other seven patients. A dilute solution of 20% ethanol was used to facilitate manual debridement in five of the seven patients. In two of these five patients, the epithelium was replaced as in laser-assisted subepithelial keratomileusis (LASEK). A solution of 0.02% mitomycin C was used after laser ablation to prevent haze formation in three patients. After an average 7 months of follow-up, uncorrected visual acuity was 20/20 in six patients, 20/25 in four patients, and 20/30 in two patients. The visual acuity in one patient was 20/80, purposely left under-corrected for monovision. Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity was 20/20 in 10 of 13 patients. Three patients were 20/25, losing one line of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity. On slit-lamp examination. at last follow-up appointment, stromal haze was graded from trace to none in all patients. Conclusions. Photorefractive keratectomy is a safe and effective technique for treatment of patients with LASIK flap complications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available