Merging PRK and Collagen Crosslinking: An Analysis of Literature and a Guide to Prevalent Protocols.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to summarize the different surgical approaches combining photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and corneal crosslinking (CXL), present each protocol template in a simple format, and provide an overview of the primary outcomes and adverse events. METHODS: A literature review was conducted as outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Eight different databases were searched. Papers were included if PRK was immediately followed by CXL. RESULTS: Thirty-seven papers met the inclusion criteria of a total yield of 823. The latest research into simultaneous PRK and CXL has been shown to not only stabilize the cornea and prevent keratoconus progression but also improve the visual acuity of the patient. Improvements in uncorrected distance visual acuity and (spectacle) corrected distance visual acuity were found to be significant when considering all protocols. There were also significant reductions in K1, K2, mean K, Kmax, sphere, cylinder, and spherical equivalent. Random-effects analysis confirmed these trends. Corrected distance visual acuity was found to improve by an average of 0.18 ± 1.49 logMAR (Cohen's D [CD] 0.12; P <0.02). There was also a significant reduction of 2.57 ± 0.45 D (CD 5.74; P <0.001) in Kmax. Cylinder and spherical equivalent were also reduced by 1.36 ± 0.26 D (CD 5.25; P <0.001) and 2.61 ± 0.38 D (CD 6.73; P <0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Combining the 2 procedures appears to be of net benefit, showing stabilization and improvement of ectatic disease, while also providing modest gains in visual acuity. Since customized PRK and CXL approaches appear superior, a combination of these would likely be best for patients.

Why Should Medical Care Be Family-Centered?: Understanding Ethical Responsibilities for Patients' Family Members.

The movement toward family-centered care in medicine has brought more attention to the importance of patients' families in clinical practice. However, an issue central to the movement-why families matter-remains underexplored in both the family-centered care and the wider biomedical ethics literature. Given the possibility-and reality-of conflicts between patient and family interests, the need to think about how far providers should go in attending to a family's welfare and wishes, and the focus that family-centered care has placed on further inclusion of families into care, a clearer understanding of providers' responsibilities for family members is needed. In this paper, I argue for a framework in which providers have non-instrumental responsibilities for their patients' family members but their responsibilities for their patients remain primary. To reach this conclusion, I first identify both role- and relationship-based reasons for thinking providers have non-instrumental responsibilities for family members. I then explain why clinicians should still largely prioritize the wishes and interests of their patients over those of their families and provide a reasoning structure for use in situations where wishes and interests conflict.

Medical Researchers' Ancillary Care Obligations: The Relationship-Based Approach.

In this article, I provide a new account of the basis of medical researchers' ancillary care obligations. Ancillary care in medical research, or medical care that research participants need but that is not required for the validity or safety of a study or to redress research injuries, is a topic that has drawn increasing attention in research ethics over the last ten years. My view, the relationship-based approach, improves on the main existing theory, Richardson and Belsky's 'partial-entrustment model', by avoiding its problematic restriction on the scope of health needs for which researchers could be obligated to provide ancillary care. Instead, it grounds ancillary care obligations in a wide range of morally relevant features of the researcher-participant relationship, including the level of engagement between researchers and participants, and weighs these factors against each other. I argue that the level of engagement, that is, the duration and intensity of interactions, between researchers and participants matters for ancillary care because of its connection to the meaningfulness of a relationship, and I suggest that other morally relevant features can be grounded in researchers' role obligations.