[Phototherapeutic keratectomy for recurrent corneal erosion of various epithelial origins: influence of depth of ablation on pachymetry and refraction]. / Phototherapeutische Keratektomie bei rezidivierenden Hornhauterosionen verschiedener epithelialer Genese: Einfluss der Ablationstiefe auf Pachymetrie und Refraktion.

BACKGROUND: Phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK) is an established treatment method for patients suffering from either genetic corneal dystrophy or recurrent corneal erosion (RCE) without underlying basement membrane dystrophy, often caused by trauma. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the changes in manifest subjective refraction and pachymetry after PTK treatment in patients suffering from epithelial basement membrane dystrophy (EBMD) and traumatic or atraumatic RCE without underlying EBMD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center study performed at the Department of Ophthalmology of the Ludwig-Maximilians University (Munich). Patient data were retrospective collected using the smart-eye database of the Department of Ophthalmology including diagnostic data from an autorefractometer and from the Pentacam HR. All laser treatments were performed with an ablation depth of 10 µm for EBMD patients and 6 µm for RCE patients without EBMD. RESULTS: Both collectives showed a decrease in pachymetry larger than the calculated ablation depths after a follow-up interval of 126 days (95% CI 104-147 days). While the EBMD collective receiving an ablation of 10 µm showed a decrease of 25.8 µm (N = 74; 95% CI 21.2-30.3; p < 0.001), the non-EBMD collective receiving an ablation of 6 µm showed a decrease of 12.3 µm (N = 44, 95% CI 7.0-17.7; p < 0.001). Both, total corneal refractive power (TCRP) as well as spherical equivalent (SE) offered no significant change in preoperative and postoperative comparison for the EBMD collective. On the other hand, patients without underlying EBMD showed a significant myopic decrease in SE of 0.4 dpt (±0.7 dpt SD, p < 0.05). The mean follow-up interval was 126 days (95% CI 104-147 days). CONCLUSION: PTK treatment offers an effective method for patients suffering from either EBMD dystrophy or RCE syndrome without underlying EBMD. The final ablation based on pachymetry at the apex can be estimated at 2.3 to 2.6 times higher compared to the original ablation depth. The reasons for this are on the one hand the laser ablation itself and the influence of the reactive wound healing of the corneal epithelium.

Transepithelial phototherapeutic keratectomy for post-traumatic recurrent corneal erosions.

Purpose: To evaluate the outcomes of transepithelial phototherapeutic keratectomy (transepithelial PTK) for treatment of posttraumatic recurrent corneal erosions. Methods: Twenty-four eyes of 22 patients with posttraumatic recurrent corneal erosions who were treated with transepithelial PTK from April 2018 to July 2020 were included in this retrospective study. The rates of recurrent erosions and complications were evaluated during the follow-up after surgery. Visual acuity and refraction were recorded preoperatively and 1 year after surgery. Total corneal astigmatism, total corneal irregular astigmatism, and total corneal spherical aberrations were recorded using corneal tomography preoperatively and 1 year after surgery. Results: Mean postoperative follow-up was 13 months (range: 12-32 months). None of the patients suffered from any complications or further erosions. Uncorrected distance visual acuity, best-corrected distance visual acuity, spherical equivalent, and cylinder remained stable at 1-year postoperatively compared with the baseline (P = 0.214, P = 0.461, P = 0.084, and P = 0.879, respectively). Moreover, there was no significant difference in total corneal astigmatism, total corneal irregular astigmatism, and total corneal spherical aberrations between baseline and 1-year postoperative visit (P = 0.938, P = 0.136, and P = 0.981, respectively). Conclusion: Transepithelial PTK was an effective treatment for patients with posttraumatic recurrent corneal erosions.

Interventions for recurrent corneal erosions.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent corneal erosion is a common cause of disabling ocular symptoms and predisposes the cornea to infection. It may follow corneal trauma. Measures to prevent the development of recurrent corneal erosion following corneal trauma have not been firmly established. Once recurrent corneal erosion develops, simple medical therapy (standard treatment) may lead to resolution of the episode. However, some people continue to suffer when such therapy fails and repeated episodes of erosion develop. A number of treatment and prophylactic options are then available but there is no agreement as to the best option. This review version is an update to the original version published in 2007 and a previous update published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of regimens for the prophylaxis of further recurrent corneal erosion episodes, the treatment of recurrent corneal erosion and prophylaxis of the development of recurrent corneal erosion following trauma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 14 December 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared a prophylactic or treatment regimen with another prophylaxis/treatment or no prophylaxis/treatment for people with recurrent corneal erosion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias. We considered the following outcome measures: resolution of symptoms after treatment; recurrence after complete or partial resolution; symptoms (pain); adverse effects (corneal haze, astigmatism). We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE for the three most clinically relevant comparisons. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight randomised and two quasi-randomised controlled trials in the review, encompassing 505 participants. Seven studies were from Europe (Germany, Sweden and the UK), two from East Asia (Hong Kong and Japan) and one from Australia. Nine of the studies examined treatments for episodes of recurrent corneal erosions and one study considered prophylaxis to prevent development of recurrent corneal erosions after injury. Two of the nine treatment studies also enrolled participants in a study of prophylaxis to prevent further episodes of recurrent corneal erosions. The studies were poorly reported; we judged only one study low risk of bias on all domains.Two studies compared therapeutic contact lens with topical lubrication but one of these studies was published over 30 years ago and used a therapeutic contact lens that is no longer in common use. The more recent study was a two-centre UK study with 29 participants. It provided low-certainty evidence on resolution of symptoms after treatment with similar number of participants in both groups experiencing resolution of symptoms at four months (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.53). There was very low-certainty evidence on recurrence after partial or total resolution at seven months' follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.54). There was no evidence of an important difference in pain score (score of 3 in the contact lens group and score of 2 in the topical lubrication group, low-certainty evidence) and no adverse effects were reported. The older study, using a contact lens no longer in common use, found an increased risk of pain and complications with the contact lens compared with hypromellose drops and paraffin ointment at night.A single-centre, Australian study, with 33 participants, provided low-certainty evidence of an increased risk of recurrence with phototherapeutic keratectomy compared with alcohol delamination but with wide confidence intervals, compatible with increased or decreased risk (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.37). Time to recurrence was similar in both groups (6.5 and 6 months, low-certainty evidence). On average people receiving phototherapeutic keratectomy reported less pain but confidence intervals included no difference or greater pain (mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -2.23 to 0.83, low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects were reported.A 48-participant study in Hong Kong found recurrences were less common in people given diamond burr superficial keratectomy after epithelial debridement compared with sham diamond burr treatment after epithelial debridement (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.50, moderate-certainty evidence). The study did not report pain scores but adverse effects such as corneal haze (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.87, low-certainty evidence) and astigmatism (0.88 versus 0.44 dioptres, moderate-certainty evidence) were similar between the groups.A study comparing transepithelial versus subepithelial excimer laser ablation in 100 people found low-certainty evidence of a small increased risk of recurrence of corneal erosion at one-year follow-up in people given the transepithelial compared with subepithelial technique, however, the confidence intervals were wide and compatible with increased or decreased risk (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.48, low-certainty evidence). Other outcomes were not reported.Other treatment comparisons included in this review were only addressed by studies published two decades or more ago. The results of these studies were inconclusive: excimer laser ablation (after epithelial debridement) versus no excimer laser ablation (after epithelial debridement), epithelial debridement versus anterior stromal puncture, anterior stromal puncture versus therapeutic contact lens, oral oxytetracycline and topical prednisolone (in addition to 'standard therapy') versus oral oxytetracycline (in addition to 'standard therapy') versus 'standard therapy'. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Well-designed, masked, randomised controlled trials using standardised methods are needed to establish the benefits of new and existing prophylactic and treatment regimes for recurrent corneal erosion. Studies included in this review have been of insufficient size and quality to provide firm evidence to inform the development of management guidelines. International consensus is also needed to progress research efforts towards evaluation of the major effective treatments for recurrent corneal erosions.