Gojenie rogówki w wybranych rodzajach zabiegów laserowej korekcji wady wzroku Artykuł przeglądowy
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Opublikowane:
gru 31, 2021
Słowa kluczowe:
zabiegi chirurgiczne refrakcyjne, fotokeratektomia refrakcyjna, Laser in Situ Keratomileusis, nabłonek, stroma rogówki
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstrakt
Gojenie się rogówki po zabiegach laserowej korekcji wad wzroku jest istotnym czynnikiem wpływającym na ich skuteczność i profil bezpieczeństwa. W artykule przedstawiono główne mechanizmy gojenia się rogówki po najczęściej przeprowadzanych metodach laserowej korekcji wad wzroku i podkreślono różnice w biologii procesów naprawczych między zabiegami powierzchniowymi a stromalnymi.
Pobrania
Dane pobrania nie są jeszcze dostepne
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Jak cytować
1.
Wierzbowska J, Czarnota-Nowakowska B. Gojenie rogówki w wybranych rodzajach zabiegów laserowej korekcji wady wzroku. Ophthatherapy [Internet]. 31 grudzień 2021 [cytowane 20 maj 2024];8(4):276-81. Dostępne na: https://journalsmededu.pl/index.php/ophthatherapy/article/view/1571
Numer
Dział
Chirurgia i laseroterapia
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Użycie niekomercyjne – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
Copyright: © Medical Education sp. z o.o. License allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Address reprint requests to: Medical Education, Marcin Kuźma (marcin.kuzma@mededu.pl)
Bibliografia
1. Dua HS, Faraj LA, Said DG et al. Human corneal anatomy redefined: a novel pre-Descemet’s layer (Dua’s layer). Ophthalmology. 2013; 120: 1778-85.
2. Schlötzer-Schrehardt U, Bachmann BO, Tourtas T et al. Ultrastructure of the posterior corneal stroma. Ophthalmology. 2015; 122: 693-9.
3. Randleman JB, Dawson DG, Grossniklaus HE et al. Depth-dependent cohesive tensile strength in human donor corneas: implications for refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 2008; 24: 85-9.
4. Azar DT, Chang JH, Han KY. Wound healing after keratorefractive surgery: review of biological and optical considerations. Cornea. 2012; 31(suppl 1): S9-19.
5. Dupps WJ Jr, Wilson SE. Biomechanics and wound healing in the cornea. Exp Eye Res. 2006; 83: 709-20.
6. Netto MV, Mohan RR, Sinha S et al. Stromal haze, myofibroblasts, and surface irregularity after PRK. Exp Eye Res. 2006; 82: 788-97.
7. Santhiago MR, Netto MV, Wilson SE. Mitomycin C: biological effects and use in refractive surgery. Cornea. 2012; 31: 311-21.
8. Taneri S, Oehler S, Koch J et al. Effect of repositioning or discarding the epithelial flap in laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy and epithelial laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37: 1832-46.
9. Matsui H, Kumano Y, Zushi I et al. Corneal sensation after correction of myopia by photorefractive keratectomy and laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27: 370-3.
10. Mohan RR, Hutcheon AE, Choi R et al. Apoptosis, necrosis, proliferation, and myofibroblast generation in the stroma following LASIK and PRK. Exp Eye Res. 2003; 76: 71-87.
11. Wilson SE. Wound healing in the cornea: a review of refractive surgery complications and new prospects for therapy. Cornea. 2005; 24: 509-22.
12. Sambhi RS, Sambhi GDS, Mather R et al. Dry eye after refractive surgery: A meta-analysis. Can J Ophthalmol. 2020; 55: 99-106.
13. Benitez-del-Castillo JM, del Rio T, Iradier T et al. Decrease in tear secretion and corneal sensitivity after laser in situ keratomileusis. Cornea. 2001; 20: 30-2.
14. Professional Standards for Refractive Surgery. Royal College of Ophthalmologists. (access: 30.11.2021).
15. Netto MV, Mohan RR, Ambrosio Jr R et al. Wound healing in the cornea: a review of refractive surgery complications and new prospects for therapy. Cornea. 2005; 24: 509-22.
16. Kim JY, Kim MJ, Kim TI et al. A femtosecond laser creates a stronger flap than a mechanical microkeratome. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006; 47: 599-604.
17. Dong Z, Zhou X, Wu J et al. Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser LASIK: comparison of corneal wound healing and inflammation. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014; 98: 263-9.
18. Sekundo W, Gertnere J, Bertelmann T et al. One-year refractive results, contrast sensitivity, high-order aberrations and complications after myopic small-incision lenticule extraction (ReLEx SMILE). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014; 252: 837-43.
19. Guo H, Hosseini-Moghaddam SM, Hodge W. Corneal biomechanical properties after SMILE versus FLEX, LASIK, LASEK, or PRK: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmol. 2019; 19: 167.
20. He M, Huang W, Zhong X. Central corneal sensitivity after small incision lenticule extraction versus femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK for myopia: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. BMC Ophthalmol. 2015; 15: 141.
2. Schlötzer-Schrehardt U, Bachmann BO, Tourtas T et al. Ultrastructure of the posterior corneal stroma. Ophthalmology. 2015; 122: 693-9.
3. Randleman JB, Dawson DG, Grossniklaus HE et al. Depth-dependent cohesive tensile strength in human donor corneas: implications for refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 2008; 24: 85-9.
4. Azar DT, Chang JH, Han KY. Wound healing after keratorefractive surgery: review of biological and optical considerations. Cornea. 2012; 31(suppl 1): S9-19.
5. Dupps WJ Jr, Wilson SE. Biomechanics and wound healing in the cornea. Exp Eye Res. 2006; 83: 709-20.
6. Netto MV, Mohan RR, Sinha S et al. Stromal haze, myofibroblasts, and surface irregularity after PRK. Exp Eye Res. 2006; 82: 788-97.
7. Santhiago MR, Netto MV, Wilson SE. Mitomycin C: biological effects and use in refractive surgery. Cornea. 2012; 31: 311-21.
8. Taneri S, Oehler S, Koch J et al. Effect of repositioning or discarding the epithelial flap in laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy and epithelial laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37: 1832-46.
9. Matsui H, Kumano Y, Zushi I et al. Corneal sensation after correction of myopia by photorefractive keratectomy and laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27: 370-3.
10. Mohan RR, Hutcheon AE, Choi R et al. Apoptosis, necrosis, proliferation, and myofibroblast generation in the stroma following LASIK and PRK. Exp Eye Res. 2003; 76: 71-87.
11. Wilson SE. Wound healing in the cornea: a review of refractive surgery complications and new prospects for therapy. Cornea. 2005; 24: 509-22.
12. Sambhi RS, Sambhi GDS, Mather R et al. Dry eye after refractive surgery: A meta-analysis. Can J Ophthalmol. 2020; 55: 99-106.
13. Benitez-del-Castillo JM, del Rio T, Iradier T et al. Decrease in tear secretion and corneal sensitivity after laser in situ keratomileusis. Cornea. 2001; 20: 30-2.
14. Professional Standards for Refractive Surgery. Royal College of Ophthalmologists. (access: 30.11.2021).
15. Netto MV, Mohan RR, Ambrosio Jr R et al. Wound healing in the cornea: a review of refractive surgery complications and new prospects for therapy. Cornea. 2005; 24: 509-22.
16. Kim JY, Kim MJ, Kim TI et al. A femtosecond laser creates a stronger flap than a mechanical microkeratome. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006; 47: 599-604.
17. Dong Z, Zhou X, Wu J et al. Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser LASIK: comparison of corneal wound healing and inflammation. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014; 98: 263-9.
18. Sekundo W, Gertnere J, Bertelmann T et al. One-year refractive results, contrast sensitivity, high-order aberrations and complications after myopic small-incision lenticule extraction (ReLEx SMILE). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014; 252: 837-43.
19. Guo H, Hosseini-Moghaddam SM, Hodge W. Corneal biomechanical properties after SMILE versus FLEX, LASIK, LASEK, or PRK: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmol. 2019; 19: 167.
20. He M, Huang W, Zhong X. Central corneal sensitivity after small incision lenticule extraction versus femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK for myopia: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. BMC Ophthalmol. 2015; 15: 141.