Differences in Simulated Refractive Outcomes of Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK) and Laser In-Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) for Myopia in Same-Eye Virtual Trials

Ibrahim Seven, Joshua S. Lloyd and William J. Dupps
Additional contact information
Ibrahim Seven: Cleveland Clinic, Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA
Joshua S. Lloyd: OptoQuest, Inc., Cleveland, OH 44106, USA
William J. Dupps: Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic, Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA

IJERPH, 2019, vol. 17, issue 1, 1-11

Abstract: The use of computational mechanics for assessing the structural and optical consequences of corneal refractive procedures is increasing. In practice, surgeons who elect to perform PRK rather than LASIK must often reduce the programmed refractive treatment magnitude to avoid overcorrection of myopia. Building on a recent clinical validation study of finite element analysis (FEA)-based predictions of LASIK outcomes, this study compares predicted responses in the validated LASIK cases to theoretical PRK treatments for the same refractive error. Simulations in 20 eyes demonstrated that PRK resulted in a mean overcorrection of 0.17 ± 0.10 D relative to LASIK and that the magnitude of overcorrection increased as a function of attempted correction. This difference in correction closely matched (within 0.06 ± 0.03 D) observed differences in PRK and LASIK from a historical nomogram incorporating thousands of cases. The surgically induced corneal strain was higher in LASIK than PRK and resulted in more forward displacement of the central stroma and, consequently, less relative flattening in LASIK. This FE model provides structural confirmation of a mechanism of action for the difference in refractive outcomes of these two keratorefractive techniques, and the results were in agreement with empirical clinical data.

Keywords: cornea; refractive surgery; finite element analysis; laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK); photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/1/287/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/1/287/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2019:i:1:p:287-:d:303741

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().