Long-term outcomes of photorefractive keratectomy and laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the long-term refractive, visual acuity, binocular vision, and quality-of-life outcomes of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) in children. SETTING: Non-hospital surgical facility with follow-up in a hospital clinical setting. METHODS: In this retrospective review, 56 eyes of 39 patients had PRK or LASEK under general anesthesia. Patients were examined preoperatively and postoperatively at 2 and 6 months and 1 year and then annually for a minimum of 3.5 years. Recorded variables included demographics, refractive error, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), stereopsis, corneal haze, and quality of life. RESULTS: The mean age at surgery was 6.5 years (range 1.0 to 17.4 years). At the final postoperative examination (mean 5.15 years), the mean spherical equivalent was -1.73 diopters (D) in all patients, -3.20 D in PRK patients, and -1.37 D in LASEK patients. Refraction and corneal clarity were stable over the long term in all eyes. In 28 eyes that were measurable preoperatively, visual acuity improved by a mean of 1.6 lines (range 0 to 7 lines). Seven patients (18%) had measurable stereopsis before surgery and 19 (49%), after PRK or LASEK. No patient had reduced BCVA or loss of binocular fusion postoperatively. On a quality-of-life questionnaire, no family recorded negative opinions of the procedure or negative social or functional outcomes postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Photorefractive keratectomy and LASEK were effective and stable surgical alternative treatments in children with refractive errors who were unable to tolerate or who failed conventional methods of treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".