Table 6.

The results of the current study and other studies that utilize partial-epithelium removal method and epithelial disruptor instruments

Study	Study design	Mean K (D)	BCVA (logMAR)	UCVA (logMAR)	CCT (µm)	Follow-up (m)	Number of patients
Rechichi et al.7	Prospective comparative case series	Δ=−3.03 Compared to baseline	Δ=−0.05 Compared to baseline	Δ=−0.25 Compared to baseline	Δ=12 Compared to baseline	12	Daya: 28
Hirji et al.8	Retrospective case seriesa	Δ=−0.3 Compared to baseline at 12 months	Δ=0.1 Compared to baseline at 12 months	Δ=0.1 Compared to baseline at 12 months	Not reported	9−12	Daya: 128
Galvis et al.11	Retrospective interventional case series	Δ=−0.1 Compared to baseline	Δ=−0.04 Compared to baseline	Not reported	Δ=1 Compared to baseline	69.6	Partial deepithelization* 80 eyes
Hashemi et al.12	Retrospective comparative study	More improvement in Conventional Δ=−0.42 P=0.015	More improvement in partial Δ=0.13 P=0.001	Same P>0.05	Less decrease in partial Δ=18 P<0.001	12	Conventional=40 eyes Partial**=40 eyes
Current study	RCT	Δ=−0.01 Conventional Δ=−0.01 Daya P=0.259	Δ=−0.04 Conventional Δ=−0.02 Daya P=0.937	Δ=−0.1 Conventional Δ=−0.02 Daya P=0.868	Δ=−23 Conventional Δ=−2 Daya P=0.0001	12	Conventional=34 Daya=30

^aThis study comprises patients operated with hypotonic and isotonic riboflavin. Only the results of the isotonic riboflavin were noted for comparison, *In this study, partial deepithelization procedure was performed with 4-5 vertical full-thickness stripes, 1-1.5 mm wide with 1 mm distance between them, **In this study, partial method was performed with three or four 1-mm-wide vertical strips, 1 mm apart from the central 7 mm of the cornea, and one horizontal strip from the inferior one-third of the cornea. Mean K: Mean keratometry, D: Diopter, BCVA: Best corrected visual acuity, UCVA: Uncorrected visual acuity, CCT: Central corneal thickness, RCT: Randomized clinical trial, Δ: Difference of changes