Hongkun Zhao1, Lijun Zhou1, Kunbei Lai1, Minzhong Yu2, Chuangxin Huang1, Fabao Xu1, Cong Li1, Lin Lu1, Chenjin Jin3. 1. State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-Sen University, 54 South Xianlie Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. 2. Electrophysiology Laboratory, Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-Sen University, 54 South Xianlie Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. jinchj@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To find a new approach of pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) with less damage to the retina in the treatment of severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR), this study compared functional changes in the retina after subthreshold and threshold PRP treatment in severe NPDR eyes. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial was conducted in this study. Seventy eyes of 35 patients with bilateral, symmetric, severe NPDR were enrolled. Two eyes from the same patient were randomized into two groups, one eye received subthreshold PRP (S-PRP) and the other eye received threshold PRP (T-PRP). Comprehensive ophthalmological evaluations were performed on the baseline and every 3 months for 1 year. Visual field (VF) and full-field electroretinography (ERG) were performed on the baseline and repeated at month 12. RESULTS: During the 12-month follow-up, 4 eyes (11.4%) in the S-PRP group and 3 eyes (8.6%) in the T-PRP group progressed to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) stage, and there was no statistical difference in PDR progression rate between the two groups (P = 0.69). In addition, the changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to month 12 between the two groups had no statistical difference (P = 0.30). From baseline to month 12, changes in central VF between the two groups had no statistical difference (P = 0.25), but changes in total score points of peripheral VF in the S-PRP group (- 242.1 ± 210.8 dB) and the T-PRP group (- 308.9 ± 209.7 dB) were statistically significant (P = 0.03). At month 12, ERG records showed that the amplitude of dark-adapted 0.01 ERG, dark-adapted 3.0 ERG, oscillatory potentials, light-adapted 3.0 ERG, and 30 Hz flicker ERG of both groups were significantly decreased from the baseline (P < 0.05). In addition, the amplitude of each ERG record in the S-PRP group decreased significantly less than those in the T-PRP group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Subthreshold PRP is as effective as threshold PRP for preventing severe NPDR progress to PDR within 1 year with less damage to periphery VF and retinal function. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT01759121.
PURPOSE: To find a new approach of pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) with less damage to the retina in the treatment of severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR), this study compared functional changes in the retina after subthreshold and threshold PRP treatment in severe NPDR eyes. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial was conducted in this study. Seventy eyes of 35 patients with bilateral, symmetric, severe NPDR were enrolled. Two eyes from the same patient were randomized into two groups, one eye received subthreshold PRP (S-PRP) and the other eye received threshold PRP (T-PRP). Comprehensive ophthalmological evaluations were performed on the baseline and every 3 months for 1 year. Visual field (VF) and full-field electroretinography (ERG) were performed on the baseline and repeated at month 12. RESULTS: During the 12-month follow-up, 4 eyes (11.4%) in the S-PRP group and 3 eyes (8.6%) in the T-PRP group progressed to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) stage, and there was no statistical difference in PDR progression rate between the two groups (P = 0.69). In addition, the changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to month 12 between the two groups had no statistical difference (P = 0.30). From baseline to month 12, changes in central VF between the two groups had no statistical difference (P = 0.25), but changes in total score points of peripheral VF in the S-PRP group (- 242.1 ± 210.8 dB) and the T-PRP group (- 308.9 ± 209.7 dB) were statistically significant (P = 0.03). At month 12, ERG records showed that the amplitude of dark-adapted 0.01 ERG, dark-adapted 3.0 ERG, oscillatory potentials, light-adapted 3.0 ERG, and 30 Hz flicker ERG of both groups were significantly decreased from the baseline (P < 0.05). In addition, the amplitude of each ERG record in the S-PRP group decreased significantly less than those in the T-PRP group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Subthreshold PRP is as effective as threshold PRP for preventing severe NPDR progress to PDR within 1 year with less damage to periphery VF and retinal function. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT01759121.
Authors: Mahiul M K Muqit; George R Marcellino; David B Henson; Lorna B Young; Niall Patton; Stephen J Charles; George S Turner; Paulo E Stanga Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2010-05
Authors: Mark S Blumenkranz; Dimitri Yellachich; Dan E Andersen; Michael W Wiltberger; David Mordaunt; George R Marcellino; Daniel Palanker Journal: Retina Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Daphne L McCulloch; Michael F Marmor; Mitchell G Brigell; Ruth Hamilton; Graham E Holder; Radouil Tzekov; Michael Bach Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2014-12-14 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Mahiul M K Muqit; Lorna B Young; Rod McKenzie; Binu John; George R Marcellino; David B Henson; George S Turner; Paulo E Stanga Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2012-11-24 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Christina J Flaxel; Ron A Adelman; Steven T Bailey; Amani Fawzi; Jennifer I Lim; G Atma Vemulakonda; Gui-Shuang Ying Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: M M K Muqit; G R Marcellino; J C B Gray; R McLauchlan; D B Henson; L B Young; N Patton; S J Charles; G S Turner; P E Stanga Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2010-06-16 Impact factor: 4.638