Trans-epithelial phototherapeutic keratectomy safe and effective procedure for Recurrent Corneal Erosion Syndrome: Study

Published On 2024-11-19 14:30 GMT   |   Update On 2024-11-19 14:31 GMT
Advertisement

A recent groundbreaking study revealed that trans-epithelial phototherapeutic keratectomy (TE-PTK) is safe and efficient for the treatment of recurrent corneal erosion syndrome (RCES) and resistant RCES cases as per a study that was published in the journal Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

Recurrent corneal erosion syndrome (RCES) is a painful eye condition frequently caused by mechanical trauma and characterized by abnormal epithelial adhesion to the underlying basal lamina. This condition leads to recurrent epithelial breakdown and impairs vision causing severe pain. Conservative treatments include the use of topical lubricants, topical hypertonic saline, and/or bandage contact lenses while invasive approaches include mechanical debridement, alcohol delamination of the epithelium, and excimer laser phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK). As there is ambiguity in the various treatment approaches for the management of RCES and the use of phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK), researchers conducted a retrospective study to examine the long-term safety and efficacy of transepithelial PTK for the management of RCES that is resistant to conservative management.

Advertisement

A retrospective study was carried out on 593 consecutive eyes in individuals resistant to conservative measures. Individuals who received TE-PTK treatment and failed at 3 or more conventional treatments like
Topical lubricants, Topical hypertonic saline, Topical steroid eye drops, Oral doxycycline for ≥ 3 months, and Bandage contact lenses for ≥ 2 weeks were included. A telephone survey was used to gather the required information by using questionnaires for basic demographic information and PTK therapies. Preoperative assessment was done by using the Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA). The surgical procedure was carried out by using The SCHWIND Custom Ablation Manager (SCHWIND eye-tech solutions GmbH, Kleinostheim, Germany) set in transepithelial PTK mode. The protocol included ablating 50 microns for epithelial removal and 15 microns of subepithelial treatment. Standard post-operative follow-up was carried out. The Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was done to calculate the cumulative recurrence-free survival after treatment.

Findings:

  • This study included 593 eyes of 555 patients (46.2% male; 50.9 ± 14.2 years old) who underwent TE-PTK.
  • The leading identified causes of RCES were trauma (45.7%) and anterior basement membrane dystrophy (44.2%).
  • The most common pre-PTK interventions were ocular lubricants (90.9%), hypertonic solutions (77.9%), and bandage contact lenses (50.9%).
  • Thirty-six eyes had undergone surgical interventions such as stromal puncture, epithelial debridement, or diamond burr polishing.
  • Post-PTK, 78% of patients did not require any subsequent therapies and 20% required ongoing drops.
  • Six patients (1.1%) reported no symptom improvement and were required to repeat TE-PTK for ongoing RCES symptoms after the initial TE-PTK.
  • All 6 eyes were successfully retreated with TE-PTK (average time to retreatment was 11.3 ± 14.9 months).
  • There was no significant difference in best corrected visual acuity pre- vs. post-operatively. The mean postoperative follow-up was 60.5 months (range: 5–127 months).

Thus, the researchers concluded that TE-PTK showed a high efficacy and safety profile and can be used as a preferred treatment option for patients with RCES resistant to standard treatments. The treatment showed a low recurrence rate and low rates of retreatments. The researchers also suggested that TE-PTK can be considered for broader application in resistant RCES based on cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction.

Further reading: Bizrah M, Shunmugam M, Ching G, et al. Transepithelial phototherapeutic keratectomy for treatment-resistant recurrent corneal erosion syndrome. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2024;262(10):3253-3260. doi:10.1007/s00417-024-06482-1

Tags:    
Article Source : Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology

Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.

NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.

Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Similar News