Responses

Download PDFPDF

The epithelial flap for photorefractive keratectomy
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Duration of alcohol exposure during laser subepithelial keratomileusis (LASEK)
    • Other Contributors:
      • JB Lee, D Azar
    Dear Editor,

    We read with interest the excellent article by Shah et al. [1] The authors compared the outcomes of epithelial debridement for photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) with those of epithelial flap for PRK. They used 20% ethanol for 30 seconds and 45 seconds for the debridement and flap techniques, respectively. They observed that epithelial flap resulted in faster visual rehabilitation and reduced haze. We have ob...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.