Myopia correction with transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy versus femtosecond−assisted laser in situ keratomileusis: One-year case-matched analysis

PURPOSE: To compare the postoperative clinical outcomes of single-step transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and femtosecond-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). SETTING: Bergman Clinics, Utrecht, the Netherlands. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: The eyes of consecutive patients who had transepithelial PRK were retrospectively compared with the same number of case-matched eyes (based on the preoperative refractive components) treated with femtosecond-assisted LASIK. The clinical outcomes evaluated were predictability, refractive outcomes, and visual acuity. The Student t test and chi-square test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The study compared 98 patients (196 eyes) who had transepithelial PRK with the outcomes in 196 case-matched eyes that had femtosecond-assisted LASIK. All patients completed the 1-year follow-up. At 1 year, 130 eyes (66%) in the transepithelial PRK group and 91 eyes (46%) in the femtosecond-assisted LASIK group achieved an uncorrected distance visual acuity of -0.1 logMAR or better (P < .005), 4 eyes (2%) in the transepithelial PRK and 2 eyes (1%) in the femtosecond-assisted LASIK group lost 2 lines of corrected distance visual acuity (P = .04), and 163 eyes (83%) in the transepithelial PRK and 167 eyes (85%) in the femtosecond-assisted LASIK group were within ±0.50 diopter (D) of emmetropia. The postoperative mean spherical equivalent was +0.11 D ± 0.56 (SD) for transepithelial PRK and -0.09 ± 0.46 D for femtosecond-assisted LASIK (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Transepithelial PRK outcomes 1 year postoperatively were equivalent to those of femtosecond-assisted LASIK. Transepithelial PRK was efficacious and safe; however, the procedure had a longer recovery time than the femtosecond-assisted LASIK. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Mr. Ewering and Dr. Arba-Mosquera are employees of Schwind eye-tech-solutions GmbH and Co. KG. Dr. Luger has no financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.