Transepithelial phototherapeutic keratectomy for treatment-resistant recurrent corneal erosion syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of trans-epithelial phototherapeutic keratectomy (TE-PTK) as a treatment for recurrent corneal erosion syndrome (RCES) in patients with symptoms refractory to conventional treatments. METHODS: All patients who received TE-PTK treatment for RCES had failed 3 or more conventional treatments and were reviewed, and if met criteria, approved by healthcare workers of the British Columbia public health authority (Medical Services Plan (MSP). A retrospective chart review and telephone survey were conducted at the Pacific Laser Eye Centre (PLEC). Exclusion criteria were ocular co-morbidities potentially affecting treatment efficacy. RESULTS: This study included 593 eyes of 555 patients (46.2% male; 50.9 ± 14.2 years old) who underwent TE-PTK. The leading identified causes of RCES were trauma (45.7%) and anterior basement membrane dystrophy (44.2%). The most common pre-PTK interventions were ocular lubricants (90.9%), hypertonic solutions (77.9%), and bandage contact lenses (50.9%). Thirty-six eyes had undergone surgical interventions such as stromal puncture, epithelial debridement, or diamond burr polishing. Post-PTK, 78% of patients did not require any subsequent therapies and 20% required ongoing drops. Six patients (1.1%) reported no symptom improvement and required repeat TE-PTK for ongoing RCES symptoms after initial TE-PTK. All 6 eyes were successfully retreated with TE-PTK (average time to retreatment was 11.3 ± 14.9 months). There was no significant difference in best corrected visual acuity pre- vs. post-operatively. The mean post-operative follow-up was 60.5 months (range: 5-127 months). CONCLUSION: TE-PTK has a good efficacy and safety profile for treatment-resistant RCES. The third-party public health-reviewed nature of this study, the low recurrence rate of RCES, and the low PTK retreatment rate suggest that TE-PTK might be considered for wider use in the management of RCES.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".