الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 265 |  |  |
| | | from | 265 | | |
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim of study: Two modalities of excimer laser keratorefractive surgery are enjoying widespread use; photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). The aim of this study is to review the literatures concerning the efficacy, predictability, stability and safety of PRK and LASIK used for correction of myopia. Results: PRK is an effective procedure for treatment of mild to moderate myopia (< <U+2013> 6.00 D). Results of PRK for higher degrees of myopia are associated with poorer outcome, that is; longer stabilization periods, greater need for retreatment, and increased loss of lines of BSCVA. On the other hand, LASIK has become the technique of choice to correct higher amounts of myopia (up to <U+2013> 15.00 D). It has a number of advantages over PRK including almost pain free healing, faster visual recovery, earlier refractive stability, an apparent decreased regression, no subepithelial haze in high attempted corrections, and reduced postoperative need for topical corticosteroid therapy. However, reported disadvantages include microkeratome, flap, and interfacerelated complications that are unique to LASIK. Various advances have occurred in the field of excimer laser keratorefractive surgery including: bioptics, LASEK, picosecond laser, IntraLase, and customized ablation, with the aim of achieving further improvements in visual and refractive outcomes. However, these procedures are still in early phases of development, and further longterm studies are needed to confirm their efficacy. Conclusion: For low and moderate myopia (< <U+2013> 6.00D), both PRK and LASIK will yield a comparable visual and refractive outcome, although the recovery time for BCVA will be faster in LASIK. For higher myopia (> <U+2013> 6.00 D up to <U+2013> 15.00 D), both visual and refractive outcomes appear to be superior in patients having LASIK.