BACKGROUND: To compare pain score of single spot short duration time (20 milliseconds) panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) with conventional (100 milliseconds) PRP in diabetic retinopathy. METHODS:Sixty-six eyes from 33 patients with symmetrical severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (non-PDR) or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) were enrolled in this prospective randomized controlled trial. One eye of each patient was randomized to undergo conventional and the other eye to undergo short time PRP. Spot size of 200 μm was used in both laser types, and energy was adjusted to achieve moderate burn on the retina. Patients were asked to mark the level of pain felt during the PRP session for each eye on the visual analog scale (VAS) and were examined at 1 week, and at 1, 2, 4 and 6 months. RESULTS:Sixteen women and 17 men with mean age 58.9 ± 7.8 years were evaluated. The conventional method required a mean power of 273 ± 107 mW, whereas the short duration method needed 721 ± 406 mW (P = 0.001). An average of 1,218 ± 441 spots were delivered with the conventional method and an average of 2,125 ± 503 spots were required with the short duration method (P = 0.001). Average pain score was 7.5 ± 1.14 in conventional group and 1.75 ± 0.87 in the short duration group (P = 0.001). At 1 week, 1 month, and 4 months following PRP, the mean changes of central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline in the conventional group remained 29.2 μm (P = 0.008), 40.0 μm (P = 0.001), and 40.2 μm (P = 0.007) greater than the changes in CMT for short time group. CONCLUSION: Patient acceptance of short time single spot PRP was high, and well-tolerated in a single session by all patients. Moreover, this method is significantly less painful than but just as effective as conventional laser during 6 months of follow-up. The CMT change was more following conventional laser than short time laser.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: To compare pain score of single spot short duration time (20 milliseconds) panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) with conventional (100 milliseconds) PRP in diabetic retinopathy. METHODS: Sixty-six eyes from 33 patients with symmetrical severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (non-PDR) or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) were enrolled in this prospective randomized controlled trial. One eye of each patient was randomized to undergo conventional and the other eye to undergo short time PRP. Spot size of 200 μm was used in both laser types, and energy was adjusted to achieve moderate burn on the retina. Patients were asked to mark the level of pain felt during the PRP session for each eye on the visual analog scale (VAS) and were examined at 1 week, and at 1, 2, 4 and 6 months. RESULTS: Sixteen women and 17 men with mean age 58.9 ± 7.8 years were evaluated. The conventional method required a mean power of 273 ± 107 mW, whereas the short duration method needed 721 ± 406 mW (P = 0.001). An average of 1,218 ± 441 spots were delivered with the conventional method and an average of 2,125 ± 503 spots were required with the short duration method (P = 0.001). Average pain score was 7.5 ± 1.14 in conventional group and 1.75 ± 0.87 in the short duration group (P = 0.001). At 1 week, 1 month, and 4 months following PRP, the mean changes of central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline in the conventional group remained 29.2 μm (P = 0.008), 40.0 μm (P = 0.001), and 40.2 μm (P = 0.007) greater than the changes in CMT for short time group. CONCLUSION:Patient acceptance of short time single spot PRP was high, and well-tolerated in a single session by all patients. Moreover, this method is significantly less painful than but just as effective as conventional laser during 6 months of follow-up. The CMT change was more following conventional laser than short time laser.
Authors: R S Kaiser; M G Maguire; J E Grunwald; D Lieb; B Jani; A J Brucker; A M Maguire; A C Ho; S L Fine Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Alexander J Brucker; Haijing Qin; Andrew N Antoszyk; Roy W Beck; Neil M Bressler; David J Browning; Michael J Elman; Adam R Glassman; Jeffrey G Gross; Craig Kollman; John A Wells Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2009-02
Authors: Alireza Ramezani; Morteza Entezari; Mohammad Mehdi Shahbazi; Yosef Semnani; Homayoun Nikkhah; Mehdi Yaseri Journal: Korean J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-03-21