Skip to content

Safety and Efficacy of a New Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy Treatment

Prospective Clinical Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of a New Transepithelial Photorefractive Keratectomy Treatment

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04698174
Enrollment
39
Registered
2021-01-06
Start date
2021-02-02
Completion date
2022-03-21
Last updated
2022-10-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Ametropia

Brief summary

This is a prospective, comparative, randomized, controlled, single-blind, single-surgeon, single-center PMCF clinical study whereby participants undergoing refractive surgery for correction of ametropia will receive a transepithelial PRK (tPRK) and conventional PRK treatment in the contralateral eye. To avoid bias in the clinical outcomes, the two PRK treatment options are randomized to the eyes of the patients based on ocular dominance. In addition, a 1:1 randomization is applied within the tPRK group to eyes with and without end-treatment laser polishing. Both procedures, standard PRK and tPRK, are performed in a one-step procedure. The main difference between the procedures is, that in conventional PRK, the epithelium will be removed using alcohol, whereas in tPRK procedures, the epithelium will be removed by laser ablation.

Interventions

PROCEDURETransepithelial Photorefractive keratectomy (tPRK) without laser polishing

Transepithelial Photorefractive keratectomy (tPRK) with laser ablation of the corneal epithelium and stroma in a single-step procedure using the B+L Teneo 317 Model 2 Excimer Laser.

PROCEDURETransepithelial Photorefractive keratectomy (tPRK) with laser polishing

Transepithelial Photorefractive keratectomy (tPRK) using the B+L Teneo 317 Model 2 Excimer Laser with end-treatment laser polishing using a fixed thickness of the additional layer of 5 μm.

PROCEDUREStandard Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK)

Conventional Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) with alcohol-assisted epithelium ablation. Then the aspheric ablation profile will be performed using the B+L Teneo 317 Model 2 Excimer Laser.

Sponsors

Bausch & Lomb Incorporated
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 85 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Ametropia * Myopic subjects with refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE) between -1.5D and -9.0D * Hyperopic subjects with refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE) between +1.5D and +5.25D * Signed informed consent form

Exclusion criteria

* Ocular comorbidity * Subject taking systemic medications likely to affect wound healing such as corticosteroids or antimetabolites. * Subjects who are known to be pregnant, lactating, or who plans to become pregnant over the medications used for standard tPRK. * Subjects participating in any other ophthalmic clinical trial during this clinical study. * Subjects with cognitive impairments or other vulnerable persons

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Absolute refractive predictability3 months follow upAbsolute refractive predictability is the absolute difference between intended and achieved Manifest Refraction Spherical Equivalent (MRSE) between eyes

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Monocular Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity (UDVA) under photopic light conditions3 months follow upThe visual acuity measurements will be assessed using Clinical Trial Suite (M&S Technologies, Niles, IL, USA) at 4 m in LogMAR scale under photopic light conditions.
Monocular Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity (UDVA) under mesopic light conditions3 months follow upThe visual acuity measurements will be assessed using Clinical Trial Suite (M&S Technologies, Niles, IL, USA) at 4 m in LogMAR scale under mesopic light conditions.
Monocular Corrected Distance Visual Acuity (CDVA) under photopic light conditions3 months follow upThe visual acuity measurements will be assessed using Clinical Trial Suite (M&S Technologies, Niles, IL, USA) at 4 m in LogMAR scale under photopic light conditions. Corrected means spectacle corrected.
Monocular Corrected Distance Visual Acuity (CDVA) under mesopic light conditions3 months follow upThe visual acuity measurements will be assessed using Clinical Trial Suite (M&S Technologies, Niles, IL, USA) at 4 m in LogMAR scale under mesopic light conditions. Corrected means spectacle corrected.
Monocular Contrast Sensitivity3 months follow upThe contrast sensitivity test consists in assessing the possibility to distinguish the alternation of white and grey fringes of difference contrast with difference frequency. Contrast sensitivity will be assessed under photopic and mesopic light conditions using Clinical Trial Suite (M&S Technologies, Niles, IL, USA) device at 2.5 m.
Halo Photic phenomena3 months follow upThe amount and disturbance of photic halo side effects will be assessed by the Halo Simulator: With this software tool the particant mimics the individual vision perception by adjusting a typical night scene image with the intensity and size of halo. The simulator utilizes a numerical scale to quantify the size and intensity of halos, ranging from 0 (none), 25 (mild), 50 (moderate), 75 (severe) to 100 (very severe).
Glare Photic phenomena3 months follow upThe amount and disturbance of photic glare side effects will be assessed by the Glare simulator: With this software tool the particant mimics the individual vision perception by adjusting a typical night scene image with the intensity and size of glare. The simulator utilizes a numerical scale to quantify the size and intensity of glare, ranging from 0 (none), 25 (mild), 50 (moderate), 75 (severe) to 100 (very severe).
Corneal pain3 months follow upThe epithelial healing process after photorefractive keratectomy treatment often comes along with the perception of some corneal pain. To assess the pain level, the participants will receive a self-administered pain questionnaire to fill out every day from the day of the surgery until they return for the 6-9 days follow up visit. An 11-point scale will be used to rate the self-reporting of pain, where 0 is 'None' and 10 is the highest level of 'Severe'. Higher scores indicate higher level of pain.
Visual perception scale3 months follow upTo assess the visual perception level, the participants will receive a self-administered visual perception questionnaire to fill out every day from the day of the surgery until they return for the 6-9 days follow up visit. A 4-point scale will be used to rate the self-reporting of visual perception, with 1 = 'Clear' and 4 = 'Very Poor' vision. Higher scores indicate poorer visual perception.

Other

MeasureTime frameDescription
Monocular Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity (UDVA) under photopic light conditions6 months follow upThe visual acuity measurements will be assessed using Clinical Trial Suite (M&S Technologies, Niles, IL, USA) at 4 m in LogMAR scale under photopic light conditions.
Monocular Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity (UDVA) under mesopic light conditions6 months follow upThe visual acuity measurements will be assessed using Clinical Trial Suite (M&S Technologies, Niles, IL, USA) at 4 m in LogMAR scale under mesopic light conditions.
Monocular Corrected Distance Visual Acuity (CDVA) under photopic light conditions6 months follow upThe visual acuity measurements will be assessed using Clinical Trial Suite (M&S Technologies, Niles, IL, USA) at 4 m, 80 cm and 40 cm in LogMAR scale under photopic light conditions. Corrected means spectacle corrected.
Monocular Corrected Distance Visual Acuity (CDVA) under mesopic light conditions6 months follow upThe visual acuity measurements will be assessed using Clinical Trial Suite (M&S Technologies, Niles, IL, USA) at 4 m, 80 cm and 40 cm in LogMAR scale under mesopic light conditions. Corrected means spectacle corrected.
Halo Photic phenomena6 months follow upThe amount and disturbance of photic halo side effects will be assessed by the Halo Simulator: With this software tool the particant mimics the individual vision perception by adjusting a typical night scene image with the intensity and size of halo. The simulator utilizes a numerical scale to quantify the size and intensity of halos, ranging from 0 (none), 25 (mild), 50 (moderate), 75 (severe) to 100 (very severe).
Glare Photic phenomena6 months follow upThe amount and disturbance of photic glare side effects will be assessed by the Glare simulator: With this software tool the particant mimics the individual vision perception by adjusting a typical night scene image with the intensity and size of glare. The simulator utilizes a numerical scale to quantify the size and intensity of glare, ranging from 0 (none), 25 (mild), 50 (moderate), 75 (severe) to 100 (very severe).
Corneal pain6 months follow upThe epithelial healing process after photorefractive keratectomy treatment often comes along with the perception of some corneal pain. To assess the pain level, the participants will receive a self-administered pain questionnaire to fill out every day from the day of the surgery until they return for the 6-9 days follow up visit. An 11-point scale will be used to rate the self-reporting of pain. Higher scores indicate higher level of pain, where 0 is 'None' and 10 is the highest level of 'Severe'. Higher scores indicate higher level of pain.
Visual perception scale6 months follow upTo assess the visual perception level, the participants will receive a self-administered visual perception questionnaire to fill out every day from the day of the surgery until they return for the 6-9 days follow up visit. A 4-point scale will be used to rate the self-reporting of visual perception, with 1 = 'Clear' and 4 = 'Very Poor' vision. Higher scores indicate poorer visual perception.
Absolute refractive predictability6 months follow upAbsolute refractive predictability is the absolute difference between intended and achieved Manifest Refraction Spherical Equivalent (MRSE) between eyes

Countries

Philippines

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026