Aim To evaluate refractive and visual outcomes of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) to treat high hyperopia using an aberration-neutral profile and large ablation zone.
Methods This was a retrospective, consecutive observational case series at the Oftalmika Eye Hospital, Bydgoszcz, Poland. We included 51 consecutive eyes of 34 patients who underwent alcohol-assisted PRK to correct hyperopia within the range of +3.6 to +6.15 D (mean+4.61±0.67 D). Procedures were performed with an Amaris 750S excimer laser (Schwind eye-tech-solutions GmbH, Kleinostheim, Germany) using an aberration-neutral profile and a 10 mm total ablation zone. Refractive results, predictability, safety and efficacy were evaluated 3 years postoperatively.
Results At 1-year postsurgery, the mean manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) was −0.002±0.43 D and mean cylinder was −0.181±0.31 D, while the values were +0.09±0.46 D and −0.15±0.26 D, respectively, at 2 years (MRSE p<0.001) and +0.15±0.44 D and −0.15±0.26 D, respectively, at 3 years (MRSE p<0.001). 78% of eyes were within ±0.50 D of the attempted spherical equivalent correction. Three years postoperatively, 22% of eyes lost one line of corrected distance visual acuity and 27% gained a line or two. The change in the mean corneal spherical aberrations for the 6 mm zone was from 0.27±0.07 to 0.08±0.13 µm.
Conclusions High hyperopia correction with PRK using an aberration-neutral profile and large ablation zone provides good efficacy, safety, predictability and visual outcomes. Relatively low change of corneal spherical aberrations and low increase of hyperopia in the first three postoperative years were observed.
- Optics and Refraction
- Treatment Lasers
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors BJK had made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work, interpretation of data, drafting the work and revising it critically as well as final approval. IP-S, MK-M and JS had made substantial contributions to the conception of the work, the acquisition, revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content and final approval. SAM and SV had made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work, data analysis and interpretation, revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content and final approval. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests SAM and SV are employees of Schwind Eye-Tech Solutions.
Patient consent Parental/guardian consent obtained.
Ethics approval Institutional Review Board (Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.