BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of the 532 nm (green) diode subthreshold micropulse laser (SML) in the treatment of non-centre involved clinically significant macular edema (CSME) in comparison to the conventional laser photocoagulation (CLP). METHODS: A total of 60 eyes of patients diagnosed with non-centre involved CSME were randomly divided into two groups. SML photocoagulation was performed in the first group (G1), while CLP in the second one (G2). Central macular thickness (CMT) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were measured prior to treatment and at 3 and 6 months after intervention. RESULTS: G1 participants had significantly better CMT at 6 months after laser application (p = 0.04) compared to G2. Additionally, CMT in both groups was significantly lower 6 months after laser application in comparison to baseline values (G1: p < 0.001, G2: p = 0.002). Moreover, significant improvement was detected 6 months after SML in G1 regarding BCVA compared to values before laser treatment (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION:SML was more effective than CLP in reducing CMT and improving BCVA in patients with non-centre involved CSME. Therefore, it seems that SML can be a good substitute for CLP in DME treatment if confirmed in future studies.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of the 532 nm (green) diode subthreshold micropulse laser (SML) in the treatment of non-centre involved clinically significant macular edema (CSME) in comparison to the conventional laser photocoagulation (CLP). METHODS: A total of 60 eyes of patients diagnosed with non-centre involved CSME were randomly divided into two groups. SML photocoagulation was performed in the first group (G1), while CLP in the second one (G2). Central macular thickness (CMT) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were measured prior to treatment and at 3 and 6 months after intervention. RESULTS: G1 participants had significantly better CMT at 6 months after laser application (p = 0.04) compared to G2. Additionally, CMT in both groups was significantly lower 6 months after laser application in comparison to baseline values (G1: p < 0.001, G2: p = 0.002). Moreover, significant improvement was detected 6 months after SML in G1 regarding BCVA compared to values before laser treatment (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: SML was more effective than CLP in reducing CMT and improving BCVA in patients with non-centre involved CSME. Therefore, it seems that SML can be a good substitute for CLP in DME treatment if confirmed in future studies.