{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04826732673267327, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03155940594059406, 'mean_word_length': 4.795698924731183, '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}}
Efficacy and safety of cross-cylinder photorefractive keratectomy versus single method in medium-high astigmatism: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: To compare efficacy and safety of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) by cross-cylinder with single methods in medium-high astigmatism. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial study PARTICIPANTS: Fifty patients with medium-high compound myopic astigmatism were enrolled between September 2007 and September 2008. METHODS: PRK was performed on 100 eyes of 50 patients with compound myopic astigmatism. Each patient underwent PRK by cross-cylinder approach in one eye and single method on the contralateral eye. Vector analysis was used to assess astigmatic results. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Improvement of visual acuity (snelen chart), refraction, aberrometry. RESULTS: Uncorrected visual acuity (UCCA) equal to 20/40 or better after six months, was achieved in 98% of eyes in the cross-cylinder method versus 96% in single method.. Mean preoperative spherical equivalent(SE) was -5.2 ±2.1 D in the cross-cylinder method versus -5.1 ±0.5 D in the single method. At six months, the mean SE was - 0.5±0.4 D and -0.6±0.3 D, respectively. Mean IOS was 0.4±0.3 in the cross-cylinder group and 0.4±0.4 in the single group. Mean postoperative absolute change in total root-mean-square higher order aberrations in the cross-cylinder group and single group were 0.16 pm and 0.17 pm, respectively. Any of the mentioned differences didn't appear to be statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Both PRK methods appeared to be safe and effective in correcting medium-high astigmatism.