Back to Journals » Clinical Ophthalmology » Volume 11

Efficacy and safety of a 3-month loteprednol etabonate 0.5% gel taper for routine prophylaxis after photorefractive keratectomy compared to a 3-month prednisolone acetate 1% and fluorometholone 0.1% taper

Authors Mifflin MD, Betts BS, Frederick PA, Feuerman JM, Fenzl CR, Moshirfar M, Zaugg B

Received 29 March 2017

Accepted for publication 1 May 2017

Published 12 June 2017 Volume 2017:11 Pages 1113—1118

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S138272

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Amy Norman

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser

Mark D Mifflin,1 Brent S Betts,1 P Adam Frederick,2 Jason M Feuerman,3 Carlton R Fenzl,4 Majid Moshirfar,1,5 Brian Zaugg1

1Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 2The Eye Center, Huntsville, AL, 3Eye Institute of Austin, Austin, TX, 4Eye Surgeons Associates, Bettendorf, IA, 5Hoopes Vision, Draper, UT, USA

Purpose: To compare the outcome of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and complications in patients treated with either loteprednol etabonate 0.5% gel or prednisolone acetate 1% suspension and fluorometholone (fml) 0.1% suspension.
Setting: John A Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Design: Prospective, randomized, partially masked trial.
Methods: PRK was performed on 261 eyes of 132 participants. Patients were randomized to a postoperative corticosteroid regimen of either loteprednol etabonate 0.5% gel (loteprednol) or prednisolone 1% acetate suspension followed by fluorometholone 0.1% suspension (prednisolone/fml). Primary outcome measures included incidence and grade of postoperative corneal haze and incidence of increased intraocular pressure of 10 mmHg above baseline, or any intraocular pressure over 21 mmHg. Secondary outcome measures included uncorrected distance visual acuity, best corrected distance visual acuity, and manifest refraction spherical equivalent.
Results: The incidence of haze in the first 3 months was 2.6% (3/114 eyes) in the loteprednol group and 4.8% (7/147 eyes) in the prednisolone/fml group and was not statistically significant between groups (P=0.37). The incidence of elevated intraocular pressure was 1.8% (2/114 eyes) in the loteprednol group and 4.1% (6/147 eyes) in the prednisolone/fml group, and was not statistically significant between the groups (P=0.12). The mean 3-month postoperative logMAR uncorrected visual acuity was −0.078±0.10 and −0.075±0.09 in the loteprednol and prednisolone/fml groups, respectively (P=0.83).
Conclusion: Postoperative corneal haze and elevated intraocular pressure were uncommon in both treatment arms. There was no statistically significant difference between each postoperative regimen. Refractive results were similar and excellent in both treatment arms. A tapered prophylactic regimen of loteprednol 0.5% gel is equally effective to prednisolone 1%/fml 0.1% after PRK.

Keywords: PRK, corticosteroid, fluorometholone, loteprednol, lotemax, wavefront optimized

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]

 

Other articles by this author:

Accuracy of Alcon WaveLight® EX500 optical pachymetry during LASIK

Mifflin MD, Mortensen XM, Betts BS, Gross C, Zaugg B

Clinical Ophthalmology 2017, 11:1513-1517

Published Date: 17 August 2017

Use of loteprednol for routine prophylaxis after photorefractive keratectomy

Mifflin MD, Leishman LL, Christiansen SM, Sikder S, Hsu M, Moshirfar M

Clinical Ophthalmology 2012, 6:653-659

Published Date: 1 May 2012