UNLABELLED: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the most common cause of blindness in the active population of industrialized countries. Panretinal argon laser photocoagulation (PRP) is used in the treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Despite its usefulness, the mentioned treatment has some side effects such as permanent visual field damage. The treatment was performed with two PRP techniques, peripheral panretinal photocoagulation (PPRP) and central panretinal photocoagulation (CPRP). Peripheral visual fields defects were assesed with Vaughans method. The aim of the study was to determine the extent of visual field defects entailed by the two different PRP techniques. RESULTS: Visual field loss in percentage was greater in the group treated with PPRP (mean 9.09 +/- 6.36%) than in group treated with CPRP (mean 4.9 +/- 4.5%) (p = 0.000037). The initial functional DR severity and presence of risk factors that influence DR severity were similar in the two treatment groups. Different results were mostly attributable to the PRP techniques employed, being significantlly less favorable with PPRP.
UNLABELLED: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the most common cause of blindness in the active population of industrialized countries. Panretinal argon laser photocoagulation (PRP) is used in the treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Despite its usefulness, the mentioned treatment has some side effects such as permanent visual field damage. The treatment was performed with two PRP techniques, peripheral panretinal photocoagulation (PPRP) and central panretinal photocoagulation (CPRP). Peripheral visual fields defects were assesed with Vaughans method. The aim of the study was to determine the extent of visual field defects entailed by the two different PRP techniques. RESULTS:Visual field loss in percentage was greater in the group treated with PPRP (mean 9.09 +/- 6.36%) than in group treated with CPRP (mean 4.9 +/- 4.5%) (p = 0.000037). The initial functional DR severity and presence of risk factors that influence DR severity were similar in the two treatment groups. Different results were mostly attributable to the PRP techniques employed, being significantlly less favorable with PPRP.