Epithelial Defect Induced Photorefractive Surgery: Comparison of Two Mechanical Epithelial Removal Techniques

Aliagha Alishiri; Mostafa Naderi; Khosro Jadidi; Seyed Aliasghar Mosavi

doi:doi:10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11

| Peer-Reviewed

Epithelial Defect Induced Photorefractive Surgery: Comparison of Two Mechanical Epithelial Removal Techniques

Aliagha Alishiri, Mostafa Naderi, Khosro Jadidi, Seyed Aliasghar Mosavi

Published in Clinical Medicine Research (Volume 2, Issue 4)

Received: 6 April 2013 Published: 10 June 2013

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the epithelial defect size after epithelial removal by Weck-Cel sponge (Medtronic) spatula and blunt scalpel hockey blade. Method: This prospective study comprised 100 cases of PRK with mean age of 26±5 years (range, 19 to 45) performed at Bina Eye Specialist Hospital from January to march 2012. The size of epithelium removal was the same in all patients and it was 8.5 mm2. Each patienst’s right eyes epithelium was removed by Weck spounge and it was removed by Haki spatula in the left eye. The residual epithelial defect size was measured in both eyes after 4 days from surgery. Result: Of 200 eyes that met the inclusion criteria, the mean preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error in right eyes was -2.6±1.5 (Range: -1 to -7 D) versus 2.6±1.4 (Range: -1 to -6.5D) in left eyes (P= 0.527 ). The mean epithelial defect size after 4 days in right eyes was 1.5+- 0.77 and it was 1.46 +- 0.77 in the left eyes (P = 0.623). Conclusion: This sudy showed that there is no difference between corneal epithelial defect size in two methods of PRK surgery after corneal epithelial removal .We consider both methods to be comparable in terms of efficacy and believe the choice of one method over the other rests on the surgeon’s decision and experience.

Published in	Clinical Medicine Research (Volume 2, Issue 4)
DOI	10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11
Page(s)	45-47
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2013. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Photorefractive Surgery, Mechanical Debridement, Epithelial Defect

References

[1]	Biswell R. Cornea. In: Riordan-Eva P, Whitcher JP(eds). Vaughan & Asbury’s General Ophthalmology. 16th ed. New York: Lange; 2004: 152
[2]	Rajan MS, Jaycock P, O’Brart D, et al. A long-term study of photorefractive keratectomy; 12-year follow-up. Ophthalmology 2004; 111(10): 1813-24.
[3]	Weiss, RA, Lih-Huei, L, Liaw, MS, Berns, M, Amoils, SP. (1999) Scanning electron microscopy comparison of corneal epithelial removal techniques before photorefractive keratectomy J Cataract Refract Surg 25, 1093-1096
[4]	Griffith, M, Jackson, B, Lafontaine, MD, et al (1998) Evaluation of current techniques of corneal epithelial removal in hyperopic photorefractive keratectomy J Cataract Refract Surg 24, 1070-1078
[5]	Pallikaris IG, Karoutis AD, Lydataki SE, Siganos DS. Rotating brush for fast removal of corneal epithelium. J Refract Corneal Surg 1994; 10439-442.
[6]	Gimbel HV, DeBroff BM, Beldavs RA, van Westenbrugge JA, Ferensowicz M. Comparison of laser and manual removal of corneal epithelium for photorefractive keratectomy. J Refract Surg 1995; 11: 36-41.
[7]	Hersh PS, Brint SF, Maloney RK, Durrie DS, Gordon M, Michelson MA, et al. Photorefractive keratectomy versus laser in situ keratomileusis for moderate to high myopia. A randomized prospective study. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1512- 1522.
[8]	Pop M, Payette Y. Photorefractive keratectomy versus laser in situ keratomileusis: a controlmatched study. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 251-257.
[9]	Kasetsuwan N, Puangsricharern V, Pariyakanok L. Excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy and laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia and astigmatism. J Med Assoc Thai 2000; 83: 182-192.
[10]	10. Ghadhfan F, Al-Rajhi A, Wagoner MD. Laser in situ keratomileusis versus surface ablation: visual outcomes and complications. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007; 33:2041–2048
[11]	Ghadhfan F, Al-Rajhi A, Wagoner MD. Laser in situ keratomileusis versus surface ablation: visual outcomes and complications. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007; 33: 2041–2048
[12]	Campos M, Hertzog L, Wang XW, Fasano AP, McDonnell PJ. Corneal surface after deepithelialization using a sharp and a dull instrument. Ophthalmic Surg 1992; 23: 618-621.
[13]	Lee JB, Seong GJ, Lee JH, et al. Comparison of laser epithelial keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy for low o mod-erate myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27:565–570
[14]	Buzzonetti L, Petrocelli G, Laborante A, Mazzilli E, Gaspari M, Valenti P, Francia E. A new transepithelial phototherapeutic keratectomy mode using the NIDEK CXIII excimer laser. J Refract Surg 2009; 25: S122–S124
[15]	Ali Fadlallah A, Fahed D, Khalil K et al. Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy:Clinical results: J Cataract Refract Surg Volume 37, Issue 10 , Pages 1852-1857, October 2011.
[16]	Luo Lu, Peter S. Reinach and Winston W.-Y. Kao. Corneal Epithelial Wound Healing Experimental Biology and Medicine 2001, 226: 653-664.
[17]	Engle AT, Laurent JM, Schallhorn SC, Toman SD, Newacheck JS, Tanzer DJ, Tidwell JL. Masked comparison of silicone hydrogel lotrafilcon A and etafilcon A extended-wear bandage contact lenses after photorefractive keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005; 31: 681–686
[18]	Abad JC, An B, Power WJ, Foster CS, Azar DT, Talamo JH. A prospective evaluation of alcohol-assisted versus mechanical epithelial removal before photorefractive keratectomy. Ophthalmology. 1997; 104: 1566–1574.
[19]	Lee HK, Lee KS, Kim JK, Kim HC, Seo KR, Kim EK. Epithelial healing and clinical outcomes in excimer laser photorefractive surgery following three epithelial removal techniques: mechanical, alcohol, and excimer laser. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005; 139: 56–63.
[20]	Ghoreishi1 et al. Alcohol-assisted versus Mechanical Epithelium Removal in Photorefractive Keratectomy. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2010; 5 (4): 223-227.
[21]	Abad JC, Talamo JH, Vidaurri-Leal J, Cantu-Charles C, Helena MC. Dilute ethanol versus mechanical debridement before photorefractive keratectomy.J Cataract RefractSurg.1996; 22: 1427–1433.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Aliagha Alishiri, Mostafa Naderi, Khosro Jadidi, Seyed Aliasghar Mosavi. (2013). Epithelial Defect Induced Photorefractive Surgery: Comparison of Two Mechanical Epithelial Removal Techniques. Clinical Medicine Research, 2(4), 45-47. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Aliagha Alishiri; Mostafa Naderi; Khosro Jadidi; Seyed Aliasghar Mosavi. Epithelial Defect Induced Photorefractive Surgery: Comparison of Two Mechanical Epithelial Removal Techniques. Clin. Med. Res. 2013, 2(4), 45-47. doi: 10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Aliagha Alishiri, Mostafa Naderi, Khosro Jadidi, Seyed Aliasghar Mosavi. Epithelial Defect Induced Photorefractive Surgery: Comparison of Two Mechanical Epithelial Removal Techniques. Clin Med Res. 2013;2(4):45-47. doi: 10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11,
  author = {Aliagha Alishiri and Mostafa Naderi and Khosro Jadidi and Seyed Aliasghar Mosavi},
  title = {Epithelial Defect Induced Photorefractive Surgery: Comparison of Two Mechanical Epithelial Removal Techniques},
  journal = {Clinical Medicine Research},
  volume = {2},
  number = {4},
  pages = {45-47},
  doi = {10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.cmr.20130204.11},
  abstract = {Purpose: To compare the epithelial defect size after epithelial removal by Weck-Cel sponge (Medtronic) spatula and blunt scalpel hockey blade. Method: This prospective study comprised 100 cases of PRK with mean age of 26±5 years (range, 19 to 45) performed at Bina Eye Specialist Hospital from January to march 2012. The size of epithelium removal was the same in all patients and it was 8.5 mm2. Each patienst’s right eyes epithelium was removed by Weck spounge and it was removed by Haki spatula in the left eye. The residual epithelial defect size was measured in both eyes after 4 days from surgery. Result: Of 200 eyes that met the inclusion criteria, the mean preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error in right eyes was -2.6±1.5 (Range: -1 to -7 D) versus 2.6±1.4 (Range: -1 to -6.5D) in left eyes (P= 0.527 ). The mean epithelial defect size after 4 days in right eyes was 1.5+- 0.77 and it was 1.46 +- 0.77 in the left eyes (P = 0.623). Conclusion: This sudy showed that there is no difference between corneal epithelial defect size in two methods of PRK surgery after corneal epithelial removal .We consider both methods to be comparable in terms of efficacy and believe the choice of one method over the other rests on the surgeon’s decision and experience.},
 year = {2013}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Epithelial Defect Induced Photorefractive Surgery: Comparison of Two Mechanical Epithelial Removal Techniques
AU  - Aliagha Alishiri
AU  - Mostafa Naderi
AU  - Khosro Jadidi
AU  - Seyed Aliasghar Mosavi
Y1  - 2013/06/10
PY  - 2013
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11
T2  - Clinical Medicine Research
JF  - Clinical Medicine Research
JO  - Clinical Medicine Research
SP  - 45
EP  - 47
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-9057
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11
AB  - Purpose: To compare the epithelial defect size after epithelial removal by Weck-Cel sponge (Medtronic) spatula and blunt scalpel hockey blade. Method: This prospective study comprised 100 cases of PRK with mean age of 26±5 years (range, 19 to 45) performed at Bina Eye Specialist Hospital from January to march 2012. The size of epithelium removal was the same in all patients and it was 8.5 mm2. Each patienst’s right eyes epithelium was removed by Weck spounge and it was removed by Haki spatula in the left eye. The residual epithelial defect size was measured in both eyes after 4 days from surgery. Result: Of 200 eyes that met the inclusion criteria, the mean preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error in right eyes was -2.6±1.5 (Range: -1 to -7 D) versus 2.6±1.4 (Range: -1 to -6.5D) in left eyes (P= 0.527 ). The mean epithelial defect size after 4 days in right eyes was 1.5+- 0.77 and it was 1.46 +- 0.77 in the left eyes (P = 0.623). Conclusion: This sudy showed that there is no difference between corneal epithelial defect size in two methods of PRK surgery after corneal epithelial removal .We consider both methods to be comparable in terms of efficacy and believe the choice of one method over the other rests on the surgeon’s decision and experience.
VL  - 2
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Aliagha Alishiri

Department of Ophthalmology Bina Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran
Mostafa Naderi

Department of Ophthalmology Bina Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran
Khosro Jadidi

Department of Ophthalmology Bina Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran
Seyed Aliasghar Mosavi

Department of Ophthalmology, Bina Eye Hospital Research center, Tehran, Iran

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Aliagha Alishiri, Mostafa Naderi, Khosro Jadidi, Seyed Aliasghar Mosavi. (2013). Epithelial Defect Induced Photorefractive Surgery: Comparison of Two Mechanical Epithelial Removal Techniques. Clinical Medicine Research, 2(4), 45-47. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Aliagha Alishiri; Mostafa Naderi; Khosro Jadidi; Seyed Aliasghar Mosavi. Epithelial Defect Induced Photorefractive Surgery: Comparison of Two Mechanical Epithelial Removal Techniques. Clin. Med. Res. 2013, 2(4), 45-47. doi: 10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Aliagha Alishiri, Mostafa Naderi, Khosro Jadidi, Seyed Aliasghar Mosavi. Epithelial Defect Induced Photorefractive Surgery: Comparison of Two Mechanical Epithelial Removal Techniques. Clin Med Res. 2013;2(4):45-47. doi: 10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11,
  author = {Aliagha Alishiri and Mostafa Naderi and Khosro Jadidi and Seyed Aliasghar Mosavi},
  title = {Epithelial Defect Induced Photorefractive Surgery: Comparison of Two Mechanical Epithelial Removal Techniques},
  journal = {Clinical Medicine Research},
  volume = {2},
  number = {4},
  pages = {45-47},
  doi = {10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.cmr.20130204.11},
  abstract = {Purpose: To compare the epithelial defect size after epithelial removal by Weck-Cel sponge (Medtronic) spatula and blunt scalpel hockey blade. Method: This prospective study comprised 100 cases of PRK with mean age of 26±5 years (range, 19 to 45) performed at Bina Eye Specialist Hospital from January to march 2012. The size of epithelium removal was the same in all patients and it was 8.5 mm2. Each patienst’s right eyes epithelium was removed by Weck spounge and it was removed by Haki spatula in the left eye. The residual epithelial defect size was measured in both eyes after 4 days from surgery. Result: Of 200 eyes that met the inclusion criteria, the mean preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error in right eyes was -2.6±1.5 (Range: -1 to -7 D) versus 2.6±1.4 (Range: -1 to -6.5D) in left eyes (P= 0.527 ). The mean epithelial defect size after 4 days in right eyes was 1.5+- 0.77 and it was 1.46 +- 0.77 in the left eyes (P = 0.623). Conclusion: This sudy showed that there is no difference between corneal epithelial defect size in two methods of PRK surgery after corneal epithelial removal .We consider both methods to be comparable in terms of efficacy and believe the choice of one method over the other rests on the surgeon’s decision and experience.},
 year = {2013}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Epithelial Defect Induced Photorefractive Surgery: Comparison of Two Mechanical Epithelial Removal Techniques
AU  - Aliagha Alishiri
AU  - Mostafa Naderi
AU  - Khosro Jadidi
AU  - Seyed Aliasghar Mosavi
Y1  - 2013/06/10
PY  - 2013
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11
T2  - Clinical Medicine Research
JF  - Clinical Medicine Research
JO  - Clinical Medicine Research
SP  - 45
EP  - 47
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-9057
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cmr.20130204.11
AB  - Purpose: To compare the epithelial defect size after epithelial removal by Weck-Cel sponge (Medtronic) spatula and blunt scalpel hockey blade. Method: This prospective study comprised 100 cases of PRK with mean age of 26±5 years (range, 19 to 45) performed at Bina Eye Specialist Hospital from January to march 2012. The size of epithelium removal was the same in all patients and it was 8.5 mm2. Each patienst’s right eyes epithelium was removed by Weck spounge and it was removed by Haki spatula in the left eye. The residual epithelial defect size was measured in both eyes after 4 days from surgery. Result: Of 200 eyes that met the inclusion criteria, the mean preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error in right eyes was -2.6±1.5 (Range: -1 to -7 D) versus 2.6±1.4 (Range: -1 to -6.5D) in left eyes (P= 0.527 ). The mean epithelial defect size after 4 days in right eyes was 1.5+- 0.77 and it was 1.46 +- 0.77 in the left eyes (P = 0.623). Conclusion: This sudy showed that there is no difference between corneal epithelial defect size in two methods of PRK surgery after corneal epithelial removal .We consider both methods to be comparable in terms of efficacy and believe the choice of one method over the other rests on the surgeon’s decision and experience.
VL  - 2
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download