Skip to main content

Safety, Efficacy and Predictability of SAT

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Complications in Corneal Laser Surgery
  • 462 Accesses

Abstract

The surface ablation techniques have different names and origins. The most widely used method today includes the following steps: loosing and removing the epithelium with alcohol 20 % solution, thus exposing the Bowman layer, aiming the Excimer laser ablating through the Bowman and stroma, and applying MMC 0.02 % for a predefined time to prevent scarring. Some surgeons use MMC only for deeper ablations and some use it routinely. The peeled off epithelium is discarded (epithelium off technique) and the cornea is protected with a contact lens and local therapy. This method was described in the literature as PRK, LASEK, or Surface Ablation Technique (SAT). To simplify the discussion we will use the broadly used term PRK for these procedure. Other variations of removing the epithelium by automated separator similar to MK (Epi-K, Epi-LASIK) or ablating the epithelium (transepithelial PRK, PTK) did not show a clear advantage over PRK are used rarely as standard SAT. This book evaluates the results of the currently modern refractive surgery techniques and does not present the older history. The older PRK result suffered from low safety because of stromal Haze and optical aberrations using an optical zones of 5 mm or less, and low efficacy because of common regression. The modern PRK uses large optical zones of typically 6.5 mm or larger and MMC to prevent haze and regression.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mc Alinden C, Skiadaresi E, Moore JE. Hyperopic LASEK treatments with mitomycin C using the SCWIND AMARIS. J Refract Surg. 2011;27:380–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mellington F, Jones S, Marshall J. Laser epithelial keratomileusis for the correction of hyperopia using a 7.0-mm optical zone with the schwind ESIRIS laser. J Refract Surg. 2007;23:343–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Moghaddam S, Arba-Mosquera S, Walter-Fincke R, Jahi S, Adili-Aghdam F. Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy for hyperopia: a 12-month bicentral study. J Refract Surg. 2016;32(3):172–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. De Benito-Llopis L, Alió JL, Ortiz D, Teus MA, Artola A. Ten-year follow-up of excimer laser surface ablation for myopia in thin corneas. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;147:768–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Koshimizu J, Dhanuka R, Yamaguchi T. Ten- year follow-up of PRK for myopia. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2010;248:1817–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaluzny BJ, Cieslinska I, Mosquera S, Verma S. Single-step transepithelial PRK vs alcohol-assisted PRK in myopia and compound myopic astigmatism correction. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(6):e1993.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Stein RM. Comparison between hyperopic PRK and hyperopic LASIK with the VISX STAR excimer laser system. Am Acad Ophthalmol. 1999:246.

    Google Scholar 

  8. El-Agha MS, Bowmann RW, Cavanagh HD, McCully JP. Comparison of PRK and LASIK for the treatment of compound hyperopic astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29:900–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Scisio A, Hull CC, Baldwin H, O’Bratt D, Marshall J. Furrier analysis of induced irregular astigmatism. PRK Vs. LASIK in bilateral cohort of hyperopic patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29(9):1709–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Frings A, Katz T. Presented in German ophthalmological society Congress. Leipzig. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ivarsen A, Hjortdal J. Seven-year changes in corneal power and aberrations after PRK or LASIK. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:6011–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kirwan C, O’Keefe M. Comparative study of higher order aberrations after conventional laser in situ keratomileusis and laser epithelial keratomileusis for myopia using the Technolas 217z laser platform. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;147:77–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wallau AD, Campos M. One-year outcomes of a bilateral randomised prospective clinical trial comparing PRK with mitomycin C and LASIK. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93:1634–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Manche EE, Haw WW. Wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) versus wavefront guided photorefractive keratectomy (PRK): a prospective randomized eye-to-eye comparison (An American Ophthalmological Society thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2011;109:201–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Toam R. Katz MD, PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Katz, T.R. (2016). Safety, Efficacy and Predictability of SAT. In: Linke, S., Katz, T. (eds) Complications in Corneal Laser Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41496-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41496-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41494-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-41496-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics