A Comparative Study Between Laser and Manual Removal of Corneal Epithelium for Photorefractive Keratectomy
NCT ID: NCT06748599
Last Updated: 2024-12-27
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
64 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2025-01-01
2026-03-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The study aims to compare the visual and refractive outcomes along with the pain score and patient satisfaction after photorefractive keratectomy in patients who underwent transepithelial or mechanical removal technique
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The first technique, Mechanical debridement, involves using a blunt spatula to scrape off epithelium from the periphery toward the center. The next step is wiping a sponge hydrated with balanced salt solution (BSS) or carboxymethylcellulose 0.5% across the cornea. This technique benefits from not depending on laser optics; however, mechanical debridement tends to be a lengthy process in inexperienced surgeons, which subsequently increases patient anxiety and reduces stromal hydration .
In the late 1990s, Transepithelial PRK was introduced as an alternative laser-assisted method for epithelial removal . The advantages of this method have been cited as minimum surgical time, zero contact of laser machine with corneal surface, shorter time for surface healing and visual correction, and decreased post-operative discomfort and dry eyes,this technique is popular among patients but requires a longer time for mastery.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Keywords
Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
COHORT
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
group A
patients who are assigned for transepithelial PRK
No interventions assigned to this group
group B
patients who are mechanical PRK using a spatula
No interventions assigned to this group
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Gender: Include both males and females.
* Stable refraction for at least 12 months .
* Intraocular pressure less than 21mmHg.
* A period without wearing contact lenses (more than 4 days for soft , more than 2 weeks for rigid contact lenses )
* No history of any Autoimmune disease .
* The refractive error must be one that can be treated by PRK
Exclusion Criteria
* uncontrolled external disease such as blepharitis, dry eye syndrome, and atopy/allergy.
* patients with Keratoconus and other abnormalities of the cornea such as corneal ectasias , thinning , edema , interstitial or neurotrophic keratitis and extensive vascularisation .
* Patients with active systemic connective tissue disease such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA)
* Ineligibility for Surgery: Exclude patients who are not suitable candidates for surgery .
* Consider excluding pregnant or lactating women .
* Patients unwilling to participate in the study .
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Assiut University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Sandra Adel Nashed
resident doctor at Assiut University hospital
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Edwards JD, Bower KS, Sediq DA, Burka JM, Stutzman RD, Vanroekel CR, Kuzmowych CP, Eaddy JB. Effects of lotrafilcon A and omafilcon A bandage contact lenses on visual outcomes after photorefractive keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Aug;34(8):1288-94. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.04.024.
Gamaly TO, El Danasoury A, El Maghraby A. A prospective, randomized, contralateral eye comparison of epithelial laser in situ keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy in eyes prone to haze. J Refract Surg. 2007 Nov;23(9 Suppl):S1015-20. doi: 10.3928/1081-597X-20071102-07.
Diakonis VF, Pallikaris A, Kymionis GD, Markomanolakis MM. Alterations in endothelial cell density after photorefractive keratectomy with adjuvant mitomycin. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 Jul;144(1):99-103. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.03.039. Epub 2007 May 23.
Barreto J Jr, Netto MV, Reis A, Nakano M, Alves MR, Bechara SJ. Topography-guided (NIDEK customized aspheric treatment zone) photorefractive keratectomy with mitomycin C after penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus: case report. J Refract Surg. 2009 Jan;25(1 Suppl):S131-5. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20090115-10.
Alio JL, Soria FA, Abbouda A, Pena-Garcia P. Fifteen years follow-up of photorefractive keratectomy up to 10 D of myopia: outcomes and analysis of the refractive regression. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 May;100(5):626-32. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-306459. Epub 2015 Sep 10.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
Laser Vs Manual Keratectomy
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id