Transepithelial versus conventional photorefractive keratectomy for myopic regression after laser in situ keratomileusis

Purpose To compare the outcomes of transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (trans-PRK) and conventional photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for the treatment of myopic regression after laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). Patients and methods A prospective comparative study was conducted on patients who experienced myopic regression after LASIK. Patients were divided into two groups: trans-PRK and conventional PRK. Visual outcomes, refractive stability, and potential complications were assessed at 1 week, 2, and 6 months postoperatively. Results A total of 39 eyes were included in this study. Both trans-PRK and conventional PRK demonstrated improvements in visual acuity and refractive error with no statistically significant differences between the groups. At the final follow-up, 16 (94.1%) eyes in the trans-PRK group and 21 (95.4%) eyes in the conventional PRK group achieved a Snellen uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/30 or better ( P =0.849), 11 (64.7%) eyes in the trans-PRK group and 16 eyes (72.7%) in the conventional PRK group were within±1.00 diopter (D) of the target refraction. The mean logMAR uncorrected distance visual acuity at 6 months postoperatively was 0.01±0.04 in the trans-PRK group and 0.03±0.04 in the conventional PRK group ( P =0.464). Conclusion Both trans-PRK and conventional PRK are safe, effective, and predictable treatment options for myopic regression after LASIK. No haze development, delayed epithelial healing, or any other complications were reported in any eye in either study group.