Ocular Evidence
Evidence database / Studies / ang-2025-randomized-transprk-prk
MODERATE evidenceRCTVerified evidence

Transepithelial Versus Conventional PRK: A Randomized Controlled Study

Ang RET · Ophthalmology and Therapy · 2025

Source
70enrolled patients*
70enrolled eyes*
2structured arms
90maximum standardized days follow-up

* Descriptive sum of reported arm counts. “≥” indicates that one or more arm counts were not reported; missing values are not treated as zero.

Study arm

Conventional PRK

PRK

Population

Patients
35
Eyes
35
Bilateral treatment
No
Age range
Not reported
Sphere range
Not reported
Cylinder range
Not reported
Spherical equivalent
Not reported
Corneal thickness
Not reported

Eligibility definition

Inclusion
Adults with myopia and MRSE ≤1.5 D or hyperopia and MRSE ≥+1.5 D.

Exclusion
Not structured

Reported outcomes by follow-up

OutcomeFollow-upFollow-up sampleResultReported fractionProvenance
Mean absolute prediction error
predictability
3 months35 eyes0.26 DNot reported
VERIFIED

Complications

No structured complication observations are available for this arm. This means “not reported in this dataset,” not zero complications.
Study arm

Transepithelial PRK

TransPRK

Population

Patients
35
Eyes
35
Bilateral treatment
No
Age range
Not reported
Sphere range
Not reported
Cylinder range
Not reported
Spherical equivalent
Not reported
Corneal thickness
Not reported

Eligibility definition

Inclusion
Adults with myopia and MRSE ≤1.5 D or hyperopia and MRSE ≥+1.5 D.

Exclusion
Not structured

Reported outcomes by follow-up

OutcomeFollow-upFollow-up sampleResultReported fractionProvenance
Mean absolute prediction error
predictability
3 months35 eyes0.34 DNot reported
VERIFIED

Complications

No structured complication observations are available for this arm. This means “not reported in this dataset,” not zero complications.