4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Prospective, randomized, eye-to-eye comparison of a new silicone corneal shield versus conventional bandage contact lens after photorefractive keratectomy

期刊

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY
卷 45, 期 12, 页码 1782-1788

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.08.008

关键词

-

资金

  1. NexisVision,Inc., Menlo Park, California, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To compare uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and patient-reported outcomes with a new silicone corneal shield and a conventional bandage contact lens (BCL) after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Setting: Stanford Eye Laser Center (Palo Alto, California) and Slade & Baker Vision (Houston, Texas). Design: Prospective randomized cohort study. Methods: Standardized bilateral wavefront-guided or wavefront-optimized PRK was performed in 25 patients with myopia. Each patient's dominant eye was randomized to either a silicone corneal shield or a conventional BCL, which was placed at the conclusion of surgery. The contralateral eye was assigned the other intervention. The UDVA and patient-reported outcomes were measured preoperatively, 1 hour after surgery, and at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 days postoperatively. Results: At 1 day postoperatively, the mean logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) UDVA was 0.04 +/- 0.16 (SD) in the silicone corneal shield group and 0.29 +/- 0.22 in the BCL group (P < 0.01). At 7 days postoperatively, the mean logMAR UDVA was 0.09 +/- 0.17 in the silicone corneal shield group and 0.23 +/- 0.24 in the BCL group (P =.01). At 1 day through 3 days postoperatively, the patients reported greater pain, discomfort, foreign body sensation, and heavy eyelid in the eye with the silicone corneal shield. There was no statistically significant difference in the survey outcomes between the two groups at 4 days and 7 days postoperatively. Conclusions: The new silicone corneal shield was safe and effective, with faster visual recovery and a trend toward quicker epithelialization; however, it might be less comfortable than a conventional BCL. (C) 2019 ASCRS and ESCRS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据