Kavitha Srinivasan1, Nazlee Zebardast2, Palaniswamy Krishnamurthy1, Mohideen Abdul Kader3, Ganesh V Raman4, Sharmila Rajendrababu5, Rengaraj Venkatesh1, Pradeep Y Ramulu6. 1. Glaucoma Department, Aravind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry, India. 2. Glaucoma Department, Wilmer Eye Institute, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Glaucoma Department, Aravind Eye Hospital, Tirunelveli, India. 4. Glaucoma Department, Aravind Eye Hospital, Coimbatore, India. 5. Glaucoma Department, Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai, India. 6. Glaucoma Department, Wilmer Eye Institute, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: pramulu1@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) location affects postoperative dysphotopsia symptoms. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, prospective, single-masked trial. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred fifty-nine South Indian patients 30 years of age or older diagnosed as primary angle-closure suspects (PACSs) or with primary angle closure (PAC) or primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) in both eyes. METHODS: Patients were randomized to either bilateral superior or bilateral nasal/temporal LPI. Occurrence of new visual disturbances was evaluated before and 2 weeks after LPI using a questionnaire based on the 7-item dysphotopsia symptoms described by Spaeth et al. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: New-onset dysphotopsia symptoms. RESULTS:Superior LPI (n = 285) and nasal/temporal LPI (n = 274) patients were matched for age (P = 0.6), gender (P = 0.7), and distribution of PACS versus PAC or PACG (P = 0.7). Similar initial laser energy settings were used in both groups (P = 0.3), although superior LPIs required more shots (P = 0.006) and greater total energy (P < 0.001) than nasal/temporal LPIs. No significant differences in postoperative anterior chamber reaction (P = 0.7) or LPI area (P = 0.9) were noted between the 2 groups. No group differences were noted regarding the proportion of patients demonstrating 1 or more dysphotopsia symptoms before LPI (15.8% for superior vs. 13.9% for nasal/temporal; P = 0.1) or any individual dysphotopsia symptom (P > 0.2 for all). After LPI, 8.9% of all patients reported 1 or more new symptoms, the most common consisting of linear dysphotopsias, glare, and blurring in 2.7%, 4.3%, and 4.3% of patients, respectively. Patients undergoing superior LPI were not more likely to describe the new onset of 1 or more dysphotopsia symptoms as compared with patients undergoing nasal/temporal LPI (8.4% vs. 9.5%; P = 0.7), nor did the frequency of any new individual symptoms differ by group (P ≥ 0.3 for all). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, neither LPI location nor LPI area nor total laser energy predicted higher odds of new postoperative dysphotopsias (P > 0.1 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Laser peripheral iridotomy likely is safe with respect to visual dysphotopsias regardless of location, LPI size, and amount of laser energy used.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To determine whether laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) location affects postoperative dysphotopsia symptoms. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, prospective, single-masked trial. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred fifty-nine South Indian patients 30 years of age or older diagnosed as primary angle-closure suspects (PACSs) or with primary angle closure (PAC) or primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) in both eyes. METHODS:Patients were randomized to either bilateral superior or bilateral nasal/temporal LPI. Occurrence of new visual disturbances was evaluated before and 2 weeks after LPI using a questionnaire based on the 7-item dysphotopsia symptoms described by Spaeth et al. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: New-onset dysphotopsia symptoms. RESULTS: Superior LPI (n = 285) and nasal/temporal LPI (n = 274) patients were matched for age (P = 0.6), gender (P = 0.7), and distribution of PACS versus PAC or PACG (P = 0.7). Similar initial laser energy settings were used in both groups (P = 0.3), although superior LPIs required more shots (P = 0.006) and greater total energy (P < 0.001) than nasal/temporal LPIs. No significant differences in postoperative anterior chamber reaction (P = 0.7) or LPI area (P = 0.9) were noted between the 2 groups. No group differences were noted regarding the proportion of patients demonstrating 1 or more dysphotopsia symptoms before LPI (15.8% for superior vs. 13.9% for nasal/temporal; P = 0.1) or any individual dysphotopsia symptom (P > 0.2 for all). After LPI, 8.9% of all patients reported 1 or more new symptoms, the most common consisting of linear dysphotopsias, glare, and blurring in 2.7%, 4.3%, and 4.3% of patients, respectively. Patients undergoing superior LPI were not more likely to describe the new onset of 1 or more dysphotopsia symptoms as compared with patients undergoing nasal/temporal LPI (8.4% vs. 9.5%; P = 0.7), nor did the frequency of any new individual symptoms differ by group (P ≥ 0.3 for all). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, neither LPI location nor LPI area nor total laser energy predicted higher odds of new postoperative dysphotopsias (P > 0.1 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Laser peripheral iridotomy likely is safe with respect to visual dysphotopsias regardless of location, LPI size, and amount of laser energy used.
Authors: Benjamin Y Xu; David S Friedman; Paul J Foster; Yu Jiang; Anmol A Pardeshi; Yuzhen Jiang; Beatriz Munoz; Tin Aung; Mingguang He Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 14.277