# Does the introduction of streamlight decrease refractive surgery operating time?

## TL;DR

This study found that using Streamlight™ for PRK surgery did not significantly reduce operating time compared to traditional methods.

## Contribution

The study evaluates the impact of Streamlight™ on PRK surgery time in a clinical setting.

## Key findings

- Transepithelial PRK had non-significantly shorter total surgery time than alcohol-assisted PRK.
- Laser treatment duration was significantly longer with transepithelial PRK.
- The variance in surgical time was significantly lower with transepithelial PRK.

## Abstract

The aim of the study was to analyze the time-savings associated with introduction of Streamlight™ (Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX, USA) transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in surface corneal ablations.

All refractive surgeries were performed using the Alcon WaveLight® EX500 at the ArtLife Clinic, Gdańsk, Poland. The study included patients treated for refractive errors with transepithelial PRK between April 2019 and October 2021, who were matched with patients treated with alcohol-assisted PRK during the same period. Only results for the left eye were analyzed.

One-hundred-five patients underwent transepithelial PRK (age 33.42 ± 8.67 years) and were matched with 105 patients that underwent alcohol-assisted PRK (age 33.05 ± 10.16 years; p = 0.11). The mean preoperative spherical equivalent refraction was − 2.04 ± 2.28 D, and − 1.9 ± 1.71 D for the transepithelial and alcohol-assisted PRK group, respectively (p = 0.20). The total surgery time was non-significantly shorter in transepithelial PRK (349.46 ± 47.83 s) than in alcohol-assisted PRK (354.93 ± 137.63 s; p = 0.7); however, the variance of surgical time was significantly lower in transepithelial PRK (p < 0.001). The laser treatment duration was greater in transepithelial PRK (41.78 ± 17.2 s) than in alcohol-assisted PRK (8.48 ± 6.12 s; p < 0.001), and so was the number of breaks during the laser treatment (0.95 ± 0.63 vs. 0.53 ± 0.88, respectively; p < 0.001).

The introduction of transepithelial PRK did not bring significant time-associated savings into the refractive surgery suite.