rss
Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93:1634-1638 doi:10.1136/bjo.2008.152579
  • Original Article
  • Clinical science

One-year outcomes of a bilateral randomised prospective clinical trial comparing PRK with mitomycin C and LASIK

This article has been UnlockedFree via Creative Commons: OPEN ACCESS
  1. A D Wallau,
  2. M Campos
  1. Vision Institute, Federal University of São Paulo Department of Ophthalmology, São Paulo, Brazil
  1. Correspondence to Dr A D Wallau, R Vaz e Silva, 41, 91040-150, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; anewallau{at}hotmail.com
  • Accepted 26 May 2009
  • Published Online First 4 November 2009

Abstract

Aim: To compare 1-year follow-up results of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) with mitomycin C (MMC) and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for custom correction of myopia.

Methods: Eighty-eight eyes of 44 patients with moderate myopia were randomised to PRK with 0.002% MMC for 1 min in one eye and LASIK in the fellow eye. The 1-year follow-up was evaluated.

Results: There were no differences between LASIK and MMC-PRK eyes preoperatively. Forty-two patients completed the 1-year follow-up. MMC-PRK eyes achieved better uncorrected visual acuity (p = 0.03) and better best-spectacle-corrected visual acuity (p<0.001) 1 year after surgery. SE did not differ in the two groups during follow-up (p = 0.12). Clinically significant haze was not found in surface ablation eyes. LASIK eyes showed a greater higher-order aberration (p = 0.01) and lower contrast sensitivity (p<0.05) than MMC-PRK eyes postoperatively. Excellent vision was reported in 64% of LASIK and 74% of MMC-PRK eyes 1 year after surgery. The corneal resistance factor and corneal hysteresis (ORA, Reichert) were higher in LASIK than in MMC-PRK eyes (p<0.01) at the last follow-up.

Conclusions: Wavefront-guided PRK with 0.002% MMC was more effective than wavefront-guided LASIK for correction of moderate myopia. Further research is necessary to determine the optimal concentration, exposure time and long-term corneal side effect of MMC.

Footnotes

  • Presented at the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ESCRS), Stockholm, September 2007.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Federal University of São Paulo.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Relevant Article

  • At a glance: At a glance Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93:i doi:10.1136/bjo.2009.174938
This article has been Unlocked
Free via Creative Commons: OPEN ACCESS

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF
  4. All Versions of this Article:
    1. bjo.2008.152579v1
    2. 93/12/1634 most recent

Services

  1. Email this link to a friend
  2. Alert me when this article is cited
  3. Alert me if a correction is posted
  4. Alert me when eletters are published
  5. Article Usage Statistics
  6. Similar articles in this journal
  7. Similar articles in Web of Science
  8. Similar articles in PubMed
  9. Add article to my folders
  10. Download to citation manager
  11. Request permissions

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Social bookmarking

Register for free content


Free sample
 This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of BJO.
View free sample issue >>

Free archive
The full back archive is now available for BJO. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006, back to volume 1 issue 1.
Register to access the free archive >>

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.