BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) and photodynamic therapy (PDT) for anterior segment neovascularization secondary to ischemic central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven eyes were randomized to receive standard PRP (19 eyes), selective PRP (20 eyes), or PDT (17 eyes). Selective PRP was performed only when iris neovascularization and/or angle neovascularization showed progression on weekly follow-up. Primary outcome measures were the extension of anterior segment neovascularization and the rate of neovascular glaucoma development. Secondary outcome measures included visual acuity results. RESULTS: After 12 months of follow-up, iris neovascularization extension was 0.52, 2.55, and 2.27 in the PRP, selective PRP, and PDT groups, respectively. Anterior segment neovascularization extension was 0.57, 1.50, and 1.27 in the PRP, selective PRP, and PDT groups, respectively. Both showed a statistically significant difference in the PRP group. The rate of neovascular glaucoma development was similar in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although PRP was better at determining iris neovascularization and anterior segment neovascularization regression, the similar rate of neovascular glaucoma development found in the three groups indicates that anterior segment neovascularization secondary to ischemic CRVO can also be safely managed using selective PRP or PDT.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) and photodynamic therapy (PDT) for anterior segment neovascularization secondary to ischemic central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven eyes were randomized to receive standard PRP (19 eyes), selective PRP (20 eyes), or PDT (17 eyes). Selective PRP was performed only when iris neovascularization and/or angle neovascularization showed progression on weekly follow-up. Primary outcome measures were the extension of anterior segment neovascularization and the rate of neovascular glaucoma development. Secondary outcome measures included visual acuity results. RESULTS: After 12 months of follow-up, iris neovascularization extension was 0.52, 2.55, and 2.27 in the PRP, selective PRP, and PDT groups, respectively. Anterior segment neovascularization extension was 0.57, 1.50, and 1.27 in the PRP, selective PRP, and PDT groups, respectively. Both showed a statistically significant difference in the PRP group. The rate of neovascular glaucoma development was similar in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although PRP was better at determining iris neovascularization and anterior segment neovascularization regression, the similar rate of neovascular glaucoma development found in the three groups indicates that anterior segment neovascularization secondary to ischemic CRVO can also be safely managed using selective PRP or PDT.