EC Ophthalmology

Research Article Volume 14 Issue 4 - 2023

Corneal Endothelial Cell Changes in Mechanical Versus Alcohol-Assisted Epithelial Debridement During Photorefractive Keratectomy

Mohammed Arish1, Mina Dahmardeh1, Meisam Sargazi1*, Mohadese Ahmadzade2 and Hamidreza Rouientan2

1Alzahra Eye Hospital, Ophthalmology Department, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran
2Ophthalmic Research Center, Research Institute for Ophthalmology and Vision Science, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

*Corresponding Author: Meisam Sargazi, Alzahra Eye Hospital, Ophthalmology Department, Zahedan university of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran.
Received: February 20, 2023; Published: March 27, 2023

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the changes in corneal endothelial cells between mechanical isolation of the epithelium and alcohol-assisted isolation six months after photorefractive keratectomy.

Methods: This randomized, controlled trial included 80 eyes from 40 patients undergoing PRK for myopia and myopic astigmatism correction. Each patient was randomly assigned to undergo alcohol-assisted epithelial removal or mechanical epithelial removal.

Results: Forty patients with an average age of 25 years (range, 19 to 55 years) were studied. The alcohol group had a lower postoperative cell density than the mechanical group, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.062). In the alcohol-assisted PRK group, the size of the cells was smaller, but the difference between groups before and after surgery was not statistically significant (p = 0.52). There was no statistically significant difference between the frequency of hexagonal cells in any of the groups.

Conclusion: According to the findings of this study, there was no significant difference in endothelial cell parameters between the mechanical and alcohol-based epithelial debridement groups. The method of debridement is determined by the surgeon. We recommend a study with a longer follow-up period and a larger statistical sample size.

Keywords: Alcohol-Assisted Photorefractive Keratectomy; Mechanical Epithelial Debridement; Photorefractive Keratectomy; Corneal Endothelial Cell; Specular Microscopy

  1. Salz JJ., et al. “A two-year experience with excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy for myopia”. Ophthalmology 100 (1993): 873-882.
  2. Netto MV., et al. “Synergistic effect of ethanol and mitomycin C on corneal stroma”. Journal of Refractive Surgery 24 (2008): 626Y32.
  3. Klein SR., et al. “Corneal ectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis in patients without apparent pre-operative risk factors”. Cornea 25 (2006): 388Y40.
  4. Binder PS. “Analysis of ectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis: risk factors”. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 33 (2007): 1530Y8.
  5. Ohnson DG., et al. “Removal of corneal epithelium with phototherapeutic technique during multizone, multipass photorefractive keratectomy”. Journal of Refractive Surgery 14 (1998): 38-48.
  6. Wilson SE. “Biology of keratorefractive surgery-PRK, PTK, LASIK, SMILE, inlays and other refractive procedures”. Experimental Eye Research 198 (2020): 108136.
  7. Zarei-Ghanavati S., et al. “Comparison of mechanical debridement and trans-epithelial myopic photorefractive keratectomy: a contralateral eye study”. Journal of Current Ophthalmology 31 (2019): 135-141.
  8. Akhsh AM., et al. “Comparison between transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy versus alcohol-assisted photorefractive keratectomy in correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism”. Journal of Ophthalmology (2018): 5376235.
  9. Lee HK., et al. “Epithelial healing and clinical outcomes in excimer laser photorefractive surgery following three epithelial removal techniques: mechanical, alcohol, and excimer laser”. American Journal of Ophthalmology 139 (2005): 56-63.
  10. Luger MH., et al. “Consecutive myopia correction with transepithelial versus alcohol-assisted photorefractive keratectomy in contralateral eyes: one-year results”. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 38 (2012): 1414-1423.
  11. Treffers WF. “Human corneal endothelial wound repair; in vitro and in vivo”. Ophthalmology 89 (1982): 605-613.
  12. Konomi K., et al. “Comparison of the proliferative capacity of human corneal endothelial cells from the central and peripheral areas”. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 46 (2005): 4086-4091.
  13. Nassiri N., et al. “Alcohol-assisted debridement in PRK with intraoperative mitomycin C”. Optometry and Vision Science 9 (2014): 1084-1088.
  14. Isager P., et al. “Endothelial cell loss after photorefractive keratectomy for myopia”. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica 3 (1998): 304-307.
  15. Patel SV and Bourne WM. “Corneal endothelial cell loss 9 years after excimer laser keratorefractive surgery”. Archives of Ophthalmology 11 (2009): 1423-1427.
  16. Einollahi B and Baradaran-rafii A. “Mechanical versus alcohol-assisted epithelial debridement during photorefractive keratectomy: a confocal microscopic clinical trial”. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 12 (2011): 887-893.
  17. Abad JC., et al. “A prospective evaluation of alcohol-assisted versus mechanical epithelial removal before photorefractive keratectomy”. Ophthalmology10 (1997): 1566-1574.
  18. Browning AC., et al. “Alcohol debridement of the corneal epithelium in PRK and LASEK: an electron microscopic study”. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 44 (2003): 510-513.
  19. Ghoreishi M and Attarzadeh H. “Alcohol-assisted versus mechanical epithelium removal in photorefractive keratectomy”. International Journal of Ophthalmology and Clinical Research 4 (2010): 223-227.

Meisam Sargazi., et al. Corneal Endothelial Cell Changes in Mechanical Versus Alcohol-Assisted Epithelial Debridement During Photorefractive Keratectomy. EC Ophthalmology 14.4 (2023): 15-19.