{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022727272727272728, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013157894736842105, 'mean_word_length': 4.470588235294118, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Corneal haze following PRK with mitomycin C as a retreatment versus prophylactic use in the contralateral eye.

PURPOSE
To report photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) treated with mitomycin C (MMC) for previous corneal haze in one eye and PRK with MMC to prevent corneal haze formation in the fellow eye.


METHODS
A 40-year-old woman underwent PRK with MMC to treat previous corneal haze (secondary to previous PRK without MMC) for residual refractive error of +0.50 +0.25 x 165 in the left eye and PRK with MMC to prevent corneal haze in the right eye.


RESULTS
Postoperative slit-lamp examination revealed no haze in the right eye, but continued mild haze in the left eye.


CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with PRK and MMC for previous corneal haze is not as effective as primary PRK with MMC in preventing postoperative corneal haze formation.