| Literature DB >> 31784704 |
Zuhua Sun1, Ying Huang1, Chaochao Nie1, Zhijie Wang1, Junqing Pei1, Bing Lin1, Rong Zhou1, Junyan Zhang2, Victor Chong3,4, Xiaoling Liu5.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of subthreshold micropulse laser (SML) with threshold conventional laser (TCL) in central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC).Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31784704 PMCID: PMC7608089 DOI: 10.1038/s41433-019-0692-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eye (Lond) ISSN: 0950-222X Impact factor: 3.775
Fig. 1a FFA of mid-phase showed the leakage located at the ring 2. b Stimulated image of the subthreshold micropulse laser mode. The white square frames represented the treatment area. The red dots represented the laser points. c Stimulated image of the threshold conventional laser mode.
Fig. 2Study follow-up flow chart. SML Subthreshold micropulse laser, TCL threshold conventional laser.
Patient demographics and baseline characteristics.
| SML ( | TCL ( | P1 | P2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | |||||
| Male, | 35 (79.55) | 42 (95.45) | |||
| Female, | 9 (20.45) | 2 (4.55) | 5.091 | 0.024* | |
| Age (years) | |||||
| Mean ± SD | 44.41 ± 8.71 | 44.68 ± 6.77 | 0.164 | 0.87 | |
| Median (IQR) | 44 (39–51.5) | 45 (40–48) | 0.322 | 0.748 | |
| Duration (weeks) | |||||
| Mean ± SD | 10.50 ± 8.22 | 10.20 ± 8.22 | −0.169 | 0.867 | |
| Median (IQR) | 7.5 (4–18) | 6.5 (4–18) | −0.324 | 0.746 | |
| BCVA (ETDRS letters) | |||||
| Mean ± SD | 76.60 ± 7.00 | 77.84 ± 7.70 | 0.159 | 0.874 | |
| Median (IQR) | 77 (73–80) | 77.5 (72–82) | 0.209 | 0.835 | |
| CRT (μm) | |||||
| Mean ± SD | 398.50 ± 92.92 | 407.49 ± 133.55 | 0.367 | 0.715 | |
| Median (IQR) | 381 (332–445.75) | 374 (324.5–458) | −0.142 | 0.887 | |
| Leakage location | |||||
| Ring 2, | 35 (79.55) | 34 (77.27) | |||
| Ring 3, | 9 (20.45) | 10 (22.73) | 0.067 | 0.796 | |
| Leakage point | |||||
| Single, | 35 (79.55) | 35 (79.55) | |||
| Multiple, | 9 (20.45) | 9 (20.45) | 0 | 1 | |
| Primary/recurrent | |||||
| Primary, | 41 (93.18) | 37 (84.09) | 1.805 | 0.179 | |
| Recurrent, | 3 (6.82) | 7 (15.91) | |||
| Prior laser treatment | 1 (2.27) | 4 (9.09) | 0.848 | 0.357 | |
| Systemic steroid | 0 (0) | 2 (4.55) | 0.512 | 0.474 | |
Full analysis set. P1 represented the P value of the independent t-test result or χ2. P2 represented the P value of the Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann–Whitney) test
SML subthreshold micropulse laser, TCL threshold conventional laser, SD standard deviation, IQR interquartile range, BCVA best-corrected visual acuity, ETDRS Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study, CRT central retinal thickness
*Significant P value (<0.05)
Fig. 3a Mean change in BCVA. b Differences in BCVA change from baseline to week 12 between the two groups. The red vertical lines indicated the mean difference between the two groups, and the grey bar was the 95.0% CI. CI within −5 and +5 letters (dashed vertical lines) indicated that the two groups were equivalent. A lower limit of the 95.0% CI with a value above −5 showed that SML was non-inferior compared with TCL. c Proportions of patients with BCVA change from baseline to week 12. BCVA best-corrected visual acuity, CI confidence interval, SML subthreshold micropulse laser, TCL threshold conventional laser.
Fig. 4a Waterfall plots of BCVA changes from baseline to week 12 for individual patients. These plots showed that all the BCVA scores improved except six patients in SML group and seven patients in TCL group. b Waterfall plots of CRT changes from baseline to week 12 for individual patients. These plots showed that all the CRT thicknesses decreased from baseline except three patients in the SML group, but none in TCL group. BCVA best-corrected visual acuity, CRT central retinal thickness, SML subthreshold micropulse laser, TCL threshold conventional laser.