Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Clinical results and complications of refractive surgery].

Authors: Y, Kitazawa; T, Tokoro; R, Muramatsu; M, Usui; S, Sakimoto; M, Sawa;

[Clinical results and complications of refractive surgery].

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) with a scanning type excimer laser MEL-60 (AESCLUP-MEDITEC, Co).We performed PRK on 102 eyes of 62 myopic patients whose refraction ranged from-3.00 to -12.50 D (mean, -6.47 D) and examined the clinical results of postoperative refraction and complications.At 12, 18, and 24 months after the operation, the mean refraction was -1.57 +/- 1.25D, -1.63 +/- 1.51 D and -1.73 +/- 1.47 D. At 12 months after the operation, 36 eyes (46.2%) were within +/- 0.5 D of intended correction, 61 eyes (78.3%) within +/- 1.0 D, and 76 eyes (97.4%) within +/- 2.0 D. Twenty-four months after the operation, 12 eyes (37.5%) were within +/- 0.5 D, 18 eyes (56.3%) within +/- 1.0 D and 29 eyes (90.6%) within +/- 2.0 D. The complications were as follows: keratitis filamentosa was observed in 10 eyes (10.5%), decrease of contrast sensitivity in 7 eyes (7.4%), subepithelial corneal haze in 4 eyes (1.2%), steroid-induced glaucoma was 2 eyes (2.1%), increase of astigmatism in 2 eyes (2.1%), decrease of best corrected visual acuity in 2 eyes (2.1%), and corneal ulcer in 1 eyes (1.1%).PRK with a scanning type excimer laser MEL-60 was effective to reduce refractive error in low and mild myopia, but there were some complications, so that a long, careful follow-up seems necessary.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Male, Postoperative Complications, Treatment Outcome, Myopia, Humans, Female, Lasers, Excimer, Middle Aged, Refraction, Ocular, Photorefractive Keratectomy, Aged

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!