ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Med.
Sec. Ophthalmology
Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1592539
This article is part of the Research TopicNew Concepts, Advances, and Future Trends in Clinical Research on Eye DiseasesView all 45 articles
Photorefractive Keratectomy with Extended Ablation Zone for Recurrent Corneal Erosion Syndrome Accompanied with Refractive Errors: A Study of Effectiveness, Safety, and Refractive Outcomes
Provisionally accepted
- National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Diseases, Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
This retrospective study evaluated the effectiveness, safety and refractvie outcomes of phototherapeutic keratectomy (PRK) with extended ablation zone in patients with recurrent corneal erosion syndrome (RCES) accompanied with refractive errors. Trans-epithelial photorefractive keratectomy (TPRK) for the contralateral eyes and phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK) for RCES patients without refractive errors were included for comparsion. There was no significant difference of the treatment zone diameter between the PRK group (8.92 ± 0.57 mm) and the PTK group (9.15 ± 0.48 mm), while it was significantly larger in the PTK group than that in the TPRK group (8.55 ± 0.51 mm). In the PRK group, recurrence of epithelial erosion occurred in one eye after PRK,which was managed conservatively. Recurrence was found in three eyes after PTK, and two eyes resolved after corneal epithelium removal followed by the application of a bandage contact lens, while one eye resolved after retreated with PTK. In terms of refractive outcomes, the deviation of target spherical equivalent at the final visit was -0.25 ± 0.57 D and -0.13 ± 0.26 D in the PRK and TPRK groups, respectively, and all patients in both groups achieved an uncorrect visual acuity of 1.0 or better. The change in spherical equivalent at the last visit was +0.09 ± 0.62 D. Delayed corneal epithelial healing occurred in two eyes (12.50%) in the PRK group, one eye (9.09%) in the TPRK group and eihgt eyes (15.38%) in the PTK group, which correlated with the formation of no-visual interfering corneal nebula and haze. Specifically, mild corneal nebula was found in one eye in the PTK group and one eye in the PRK group due to 30 to 60 days of corneal epithelialization. Temporal haze was observed in two eyes (12.50%) in the PRK group, and two eyes (18.18%) in the TPRK group, and one eye (1.92%) in the PTK group. In conclusion, the effectiveness and safety of PRK with extended oblation zone were comparable with PTK for RCES and the refractive outcomes were similar with TPRK. It is recommended for RCES patients accompanied with refractive errors for relieving symptoms and acquiring encouraging visual acuity simultaneously.
Keywords: Recurrent corneal erosion syndrome, Photorefractive Keratectomy, Phototherapeutic keratectomy, Trans-epithelial photorefractive keratectomy, Myopia
Received: 12 Mar 2025; Accepted: 17 Jun 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Yu, Wang, Zhang, Zhang, Yang and Wu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Shuangqing Wu, National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Diseases, Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.