Pain score of patients undergoing single spot, short pulse laser versus conventional laser for diabetic retinopathy

Retinal Oxygenation With Conventional 100-ms Versus Short-Pulse Pan-Retinal Laser Photocoagulation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Conventional (100 ms) pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) laser burns are larger than short-pulse (10 ms to 20 ms) PRP burns. This study investigates the effect of PRP burns of different sizes on retinal oxygenation.

METHOD

A mathematical model using COMSOL Multiphysics 6 was used to create a three-dimensional abstraction of the coupled biology of the choroid, photoreceptor, and retinal tissues. Laser burn sizes were varied in the model, specifically considering burn diameters of 500 μm, 250 μm, and 125 μm, while keeping the total burn area constant.

RESULTS

Total increase in retinal oxygenation was the same for different burn sizes, but the oxygen distribution differed. Smaller burns resulted in a more even lateral oxygen distribution but with reduced penetration into the inner retina.

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional and short-pulse PRP may affect retinal oxygenation differently, even when total burn area is the same. Further investigation into optimum burn size and pattern is required. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2024;55:40-45.].

Comparison of Pain Scores Among Patients Undergoing Conventional and Novel Panretinal Photocoagulation for Diabetic Retinopathy: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To summarize key findings from a systematic review focusing on pain as an adverse outcome of panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) among patients with diabetic retinopathy.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

We systematically searched articles in major databases from July to September 2020. Studies that compared pain outcomes of PRP among diabetic patients who underwent conventional single-spot laser (SSL), conventional multi-spot laser (MSL), and/or novel navigated laser (NNL) were included. The Cochrane RoB 2 tool and ROBINS-I tool were used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs), respectively.

RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs and 4 CCTs. Thirteen studies were included for Comparison 1 (Conventional SSL versus Conventional MSL), 3 studies were included for Comparison 2 (NNL versus Conventional MSL), and 3 studies were included for Comparison 3 (NNL versus Conventional SSL). A total of 783 patients and 1961 eyes were included in this review. The review showed that NNL yielded the lowest pain scores, followed by conventional MSL, then by conventional SSL.

CONCLUSION

This review summarizes findings of multiple studies that reported pain as an adverse outcome of PRP among patients with advanced diabetic retinopathy. Data from RCTs with mostly some concerns for bias (RoB 2 tool) and CCTs with mostly moderate risk of bias (ROBINS-I tool) show benefit of using MSL over SSL, and NNL over conventional systems for PRP in diabetic retinopathy, considering pain as the primary outcome.

Assessment of Patient Pain Experience During Intravitreal Ranibizumab and Aflibercept Injection

PURPOSE:

The aim of this study was to compare the pain scores of the patients during intravitreal injection of ranibizumab and aflibercept based on patient feedback.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Seventy-two eyes of 72 patients, who had not previously undergone any intravitreal injection procedures, were included in this study. Thirty-eight patients received ranibizumab, and 34 patients received aflibercept injections. The pain was measured by visual analog scale (VAS). Patients were asked to rate their pain experienced during the injection between 0 (no pain) and 10 (worst pain ever felt) on VAS just after the injection.

RESULTS:

VAS pain scores in ranibizumab and aflibercept groups were 3.28 ± 2.45 and 4.20 ± 2.30, respectively. There was a significant difference in average VAS pain scores between groups (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION:

VAS pain scores in aflibercept group were found to be significantly higher than the scores in the ranibizumab group.

PASCAL laser platform produces less pain responses compared to conventional laser system during the panretinal photocoagulation: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Most of patients experience pain during the panretinal photocoagulation(PRP). Laser photocoagulation delivery has advanced with the introduction of pattern-scanning laser systems (PASCAL). Shorter pulse duration and less choroidal penetration believed to reduce pain during the laser treatment.

Objectives

To compare the severity of expressed pain scores in patients with PDR who underwent PRP either with PASCAL laser or conventional laser.

Methods

A total of 28 patients with a diagnosis of PDR who were scheduled for bilateral PRP therapy were enrolled into the prospective study. Both eyes were treated within the same session and while one eye was treated with PASCAL the other was treated with conventional laser randomly. Pulse duration was adjusted to 100-ms in conventional laser and 30 ms in PASCAL. The severity of pain was graded using a verbal scale and a visual analog scale (VAS).

Results

Mean age was 61.36±9.10 years. Mean verbal and VAS scores were 1.32±0.47 and 2.86±1.21 in the PASCAL laser and 2.39±0.49 and 5.75±1.35 in the conventional laser group, respectively. Differences between expressed pain scores obtained by both two scales were statistically significant (p<0.001).

Conclusion

PASCAL laser significantly alleviates pain levels possibly due to the shorter laser pulse duration and lower intensity.

Comparison of 577-nm Multispot and Standard Single-Spot Photocoagulation for Diabetic Retinopathy

OBJECTIVE

To compare two different laser strategies of panretinal photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy.

METHODS

Single-center, randomized study including 41 eyes treated with 577-nm multispot laser with a 20-ms pulse duration (group 1) or a 532-nm single-spot laser with a 100-ms pulse duration (group 2). The outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and imaging changes at baseline, 6 and 12 months, laser parameters, and results of subjective pain analysis.

RESULTS

At 12 months, the treatments did not differ significantly in BCVA, central retinal thicknesses (CRTs), improved macular edema, vitreomacular interface changes, patient-reported pain scores, or angiographic responses. Group 1 had significantly fewer treatment sessions but used more laser spots (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The multispot laser required fewer applications with more spots delivered to compensate for lower fluency, showing similar patient tolerance to single-spot laser. Both groups maintained the initial visual acuities and CRTs; about 50% of cases had vitreomacular interface changes and improved macular edema, with similar angiographic improvements after 12 months.

Different lasers and techniques for proliferative diabetic retinopathy

BACKGROUND

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a chronic progressive disease of the retinal microvasculature associated with prolonged hyperglycaemia. Proliferative DR (PDR) is a sight-threatening complication of DR and is characterised by the development of abnormal new vessels in the retina, optic nerve head or anterior segment of the eye. Argon laser photocoagulation has been the gold standard for the treatment of PDR for many years, using regimens evaluated by the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS). Over the years, there have been modifications of the technique and introduction of new laser technologies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different types of laser, other than argon laser, and different laser protocols, other than those established by the ETDRS, for the treatment of PDR. We compared different wavelengths; power and pulse duration; pattern, number and location of burns versus standard argon laser undertaken as specified by the ETDRS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 8 June 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) using standard argon laser for treatment of PDR compared with any other laser modality. We excluded studies of lasers that are not in common use, such as the xenon arc, ruby or Krypton laser.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed Cochrane guidelines and graded the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 studies from Europe (6), the USA (2), the Middle East (1) and Asia (2). Five studies compared different types of laser to argon: Nd:YAG (2 studies) or diode (3 studies). Other studies compared modifications to the standard argon laser PRP technique. The studies were poorly reported and we judged all to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain. The sample size varied from 20 to 270 eyes but the majority included 50 participants or fewer.Nd:YAG versus argon laser (2 studies): very low-certainty evidence on vision loss, vision gain, progression and regression of PDR, pain during laser treatment and adverse effects.Diode versus argon laser (3 studies): very-low certainty evidence on vision loss, vision gain, progression and regression of PDR and adverse effects; moderate-certainty evidence that diode laser was more painful (risk ratio (RR) troublesome pain during laser treatment (RR 3.12, 95% CI 2.16 to 4.51; eyes = 202; studies = 3; I² = 0%).0.5 second versus 0.1 second exposure (1 study): low-certainty evidence of lower chance of vision loss with 0.5 second compared with 0.1 second exposure but estimates were imprecise and compatible with no difference or an increased chance of vision loss (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.04, 44 eyes, 1 RCT); low-certainty evidence that people treated with 0.5 second exposure were more likely to gain vision (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.68 to 7.28, 44 eyes, 1 RCT) but again the estimates were imprecise . People given 0.5 second exposure were more likely to have regression of PDR compared with 0.1 second laser PRP again with imprecise estimate (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.48, 32 eyes, 1 RCT). There was very low-certainty evidence on progression of PDR and adverse effects.'Light intensity' PRP versus classic PRP (1 study): vision loss or gain was not reported but the mean difference in logMAR acuity at 1 year was -0.09 logMAR (95% CI -0.22 to 0.04, 65 eyes, 1 RCT); and low-certainty evidence that fewer patients had pain during light PRP compared with classic PRP with an imprecise estimate compatible with increased or decreased pain (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.93, 65 eyes, 1 RCT).'Mild scatter' (laser pattern limited to 400 to 600 laser burns in one sitting) PRP versus standard 'full' scatter PRP (1 study): very low-certainty evidence on vision and visual field loss. No information on adverse effects.'Central' (a more central PRP in addition to mid-peripheral PRP) versus 'peripheral' standard PRP (1 study): low-certainty evidence that people treated with central PRP were more likely to lose 15 or more letters of BCVA compared with peripheral laser PRP (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 13.46, 50 eyes, 1 RCT); and less likely to gain 15 or more letters (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.08) with imprecise estimates compatible with increased or decreased risk.'Centre sparing' PRP (argon laser distribution limited to 3 disc diameters from the upper temporal and lower margin of the fovea) versus standard 'full scatter' PRP (1 study): low-certainty evidence that people treated with 'centre sparing' PRP were less likely to lose 15 or more ETDRS letters of BCVA compared with 'full scatter' PRP (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50, 53 eyes). Low-certainty evidence of similar risk of regression of PDR between groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.27, 53 eyes). Adverse events were not reported.'Extended targeted' PRP (to include the equator and any capillary non-perfusion areas between the vascular arcades) versus standard PRP (1 study): low-certainty evidence that people in the extended group had similar or slightly reduced chance of loss of 15 or more letters of BCVA compared with the standard PRP group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.28, 270 eyes). Low-certainty evidence that people in the extended group had a similar or slightly increased chance of regression of PDR compared with the standard PRP group (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.31, 270 eyes). Very low-certainty information on adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Modern laser techniques and modalities have been developed to treat PDR. However there is limited evidence available with respect to the efficacy and safety of alternative laser systems or strategies compared with the standard argon laser as described in ETDRS.

Patient Comfort with Yellow (577 nm) vs. Green (532 nm) Laser Panretinal Photocoagulation for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

PURPOSE

Pain associated with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) can adversely affect the number and quality of retinal burns delivered and subsequently increase the number of treatment sessions required to achieve regression of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). We assessed comfort in patients undergoing treatment with yellow (577 nm) vs. green (532 nm) PRP for PDR.

DESIGN

Prospective, single-center, randomized crossover clinical trial.

SUBJECTS

Patients with PDR with high-risk characteristics.

METHODS

Subjects were equally randomized to first receive PRP with a laser indirect ophthalmoscope with either green (IQ 532; IRIDEX, Mountain View, CA) or yellow (IQ 577; IRIDEX) laser, followed by additional treatment with the opposite laser using standardized settings in the superior hemisphere of a single treatment eye per patient. Topical anesthetic was used in all study eyes before each treatment and power was titrated until moderate grey-white retinal burns were achieved.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was patient's perceived pain as measured with a standardized 10-point pain scale. Secondary outcome measures included laser power, treatment time, number of treatment shots with each laser, and physician ease-of-use score with each laser on a 10-point scale.

RESULTS

Forty patients (40 eyes) with a mean age of 54.0 years were enrolled. Mean pain scores were similar when comparing treatment with yellow and green laser (3.1 ± 2.3 vs. 2.8 ± 2.6; P = 0.40). No significant difference was seen in visual acuity (P = 0.44) or central macular thickness (P = 0.39) 1 month after PRP. Additionally, there were no significant differences when comparing minimum power required (243.2 ± 74.2 vs. 234.0 ± 59.6 mW; P = 0.55), treatment time (5.1 ± 3.6 vs. 5.6 ± 3.9 minutes; P = 0.384), and number of treatment shots (257.6 ± 12.6 vs. 258.0 ± 2.3; P = 0.68). Six of 7 co-investigators (85%) preferred using yellow laser over green and reported ease-of-use scores of 9.0 ± 1.2 and 7.6 ± 1.4, respectively (P = 0.07). No severe adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient comfort during PRP for PDR utilizing laser indirect ophthalmoscopy is similar for green and yellow wavelengths.

Single-Spot Yellow Laser Versus Conventional Green Laser on Panretinal Photocoagulation: Patient Pain Scores and Preferences

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the mainstay therapy for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Pain during and after its application is a complication that affects patients' therapeutic adherence. This study aimed to compare pain perception and patient preference for the 577-nm yellow laser (YL-577) (LIGHTL as 577; LIGHTMED, San Clemente, CA) and the conventional 532-nm green laser (GL-532) (Purepoint Laser; Alcon, Fort Worth, TX) with PRP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 92 patient eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy treated with PRP were randomly assigned to receive both GL-532 and YL-577 (184 eyes) - one on each eye, with the order of application randomized, as well. Afterward, verbal rapid answer and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for pain perception and patient preference were evaluated.

RESULTS

VAS score was 7 ± 2 for the GL-532 group compared to 5 ± 3 in the YL-577 group (P = .001). Overall, 75% of the patients preferred YL-577 therapy if they were to receive a second PRP session.

CONCLUSION

The use of YL-577 as an alternative approach for PRP reduces pain perception and is preferred by patients. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2017;48:902-905.].

Panretinal Photocoagulation Using Short-Pulse Laser Induces Less Inflammation and Macular Thickening in Patients with Diabetic Retinopathy

We compared the effect of panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) using short-pulse laser (SPL) and conventional laser, regardless of the number of spots, in terms of their effect on the progression of diabetic macular edema (DME) and anterior flare intensity (AFI) in patients with high-risk nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (non-PDR). Forty-two eyes of 42 patients were subjected to PRP using the conventional argon laser (Conv group) or SPL (SPL group). CRT and AFI levels in the SPL group were significantly lower than those in the Conv group (CRT at 4, 6, and 10 weeks; AFI at 6, 10, and 18 weeks). Eyes of rabbits were photocoagulated using conventional laser with 500 spots (Conv 500s), SPL with 500 spots (SPL 500s), or 1000 spots (SPL 1000s). Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), interleukin-6 (IL-6), intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), and monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1) levels in vitreous humor were measured using an immunoassay. Compared to conventional laser, VEGF, IL-6, and MCP-1 levels were significantly lower in the SPL 1000s and SPL 500s groups. In patients with high-risk non-PDR, SPL has a greater preventive effect on the progression of DME and AFI and produces less inflammatory cytokines than conventional lasers.

Analgesic Effect of Topical Sodium Diclofenac before Retinal Photocoagulation for Diabetic Retinopathy: A Randomized Double-masked Placebo-controlled Intraindividual Crossover Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the analgesic effect of topical sodium diclofenac 0.1% before retinal laser photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy.

METHODS

Diabetic patients who were candidates for peripheral laser photocoagulation were included in a randomized, placebo-controlled, intraindividual, two-period, and crossover clinical trial. At the first session and based on randomization, one eye received topical sodium diclofenac 0.1% and the other eye received an artificial tear drop (as placebo) three times before laser treatment. At the second session, eyes were given the alternate drug. Patients scored their pain using visual analogue scale (max, 10 cm) at both sessions. Patients and the surgeon were blinded to the drops given. Difference of pain level was the main outcome measure.

RESULTS

A total of 200 eyes of 100 patients were enrolled. Both treatments were matched regarding the applied laser. Pain sensation based on visual analogue scale was 5.6 ± 3.0 in the treated group and 5.5 ± 3.0 in the control group. The calculated treatment effect was 0.15 (95% confidence interval, -0.27 to 0.58; p = 0.486). The estimated period effect was 0.24 (p = 0.530) and the carryover effect was not significant (p = 0.283).

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment with topical sodium diclofenac 0.1% does not have any analgesic effect during peripheral retinal laser photocoagulation in diabetic patients.

Pan-retinal photocoagulation and other forms of laser treatment and drug therapies for non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Diabetic retinopathy is an important cause of visual loss. Laser photocoagulation preserves vision in diabetic retinopathy but is currently used at the stage of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR).

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) given at the non-proliferative stage of diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) compared with waiting until the high-risk PDR (HR-PDR) stage was reached. There have been recent advances in laser photocoagulation techniques, and in the use of laser treatments combined with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs or injected steroids. Our secondary questions were: (1) If PRP were to be used in NPDR, which form of laser treatment should be used? and (2) Is adjuvant therapy with intravitreal drugs clinically effective and cost-effective in PRP?

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for efficacy but other designs also used.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and EMBASE to February 2014, Web of Science.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic review and economic modelling.

RESULTS

The Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS), published in 1991, was the only trial designed to determine the best time to initiate PRP. It randomised one eye of 3711 patients with mild-to-severe NPDR or early PDR to early photocoagulation, and the other to deferral of PRP until HR-PDR developed. The risk of severe visual loss after 5 years for eyes assigned to PRP for NPDR or early PDR compared with deferral of PRP was reduced by 23% (relative risk 0.77, 99% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.06). However, the ETDRS did not provide results separately for NPDR and early PDR. In economic modelling, the base case found that early PRP could be more effective and less costly than deferred PRP. Sensitivity analyses gave similar results, with early PRP continuing to dominate or having low incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. However, there are substantial uncertainties. For our secondary aims we found 12 trials of lasers in DR, with 982 patients in total, ranging from 40 to 150. Most were in PDR but five included some patients with severe NPDR. Three compared multi-spot pattern lasers against argon laser. RCTs comparing laser applied in a lighter manner (less-intensive burns) with conventional methods (more intense burns) reported little difference in efficacy but fewer adverse effects. One RCT suggested that selective laser treatment targeting only ischaemic areas was effective. Observational studies showed that the most important adverse effect of PRP was macular oedema (MO), which can cause visual impairment, usually temporary. Ten trials of laser and anti-VEGF or steroid drug combinations were consistent in reporting a reduction in risk of PRP-induced MO.

LIMITATION

The current evidence is insufficient to recommend PRP for severe NPDR.

CONCLUSIONS

There is, as yet, no convincing evidence that modern laser systems are more effective than the argon laser used in ETDRS, but they appear to have fewer adverse effects. We recommend a trial of PRP for severe NPDR and early PDR compared with deferring PRP till the HR-PDR stage. The trial would use modern laser technologies, and investigate the value adjuvant prophylactic anti-VEGF or steroid drugs.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005408.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Effect of high-intensity pulse irradiation with linear polarized near-infrared rays on muscle tone in patients with cerebrovascular disease: a randomized controlled trial

[Purpose] This study evaluated effects of a high-intensity linear polarized near-infrared ray irradiation for mitigation of muscle hypertonia. [Subjects] The subjects were 20 patients with cerebrovascular disease. [Methods] Subjects were randomly allocated to an intervention or control group. The intervention group received irradiation of the triceps surae. Passive range of motion and passive resistive joint torque of ankle dorsiflexion were measured before and after the intervention in knee extended and flexed positions. [Results] In the knee extended position, the mean changes in passive range of motion were 2.70° and -0.50° in the intervention and control groups, respectively, and the mean changes in passive resistive joint torque were -1.42 and -0.26 N·m in the intervention and control groups, respectively. In the knee flexed position, the mean changes in passive range of motion were 3.70° and 0.70° in the intervention and control groups, respectively, and the mean changes in passive resistive joint torque were -2.38 and -0.31 N·m in the intervention and control groups, respectively. In both knee positions, the mean changes in the two indices were greater in the intervention group than in the control group. [Conclusion] High-intensity linear polarized near-infrared ray irradiation increases passive range of motion and decreases passive resistive joint torque.

Assessment of patient pain experience during intravitreal 27-gauge bevacizumab and 30-gauge ranibizumab injection

PURPOSE

To compare pain scores of patients during intravitreal 27-gauge bevacizumab and 30-gauge ranibizumab injection procedures.

METHODS

Seventy eyes of 70 patients who had not previously undergone intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy were included in this study. Thirty-five patients received ranibizumab and 35 patients received bevacizumab. The diagnoses of the patients were: 27 age related macular degeneration, 15 diabetic macular edema, 9 diabetic vitreous hemorrhage, 6 central retinal vein occlusion, 11 branch retinal vein occlusion and 2 central serous chorioretinopathy. Bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 mL) was injected into the vitreous cavity using a 27-gauge needle, and ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 mL) was injected with 30-gauge needle. Patients were asked just after the injection to rate their perceived pain during the injection using the visual analogue scale (VAS) of 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable/worst pain). The average of these scores was used as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

The VAS pain scores in the ranibizumab and bevacizumab groups were 1.06 ± 0.91 (range, 0 to 3) and 1.94 ± 1.55 (range, 0 to 7), respectively, a significant difference (p = 0.005). Patients <65 and ≥65 years of age in both the ranibizumab and bevacizumab groups were then compared. For patients <65, there was a significant difference in the average VAS pain scores between groups (p = 0.003). However, for patients ≥65 years, there was not a significant difference in the average VAS pain scores between groups (p = 0.238). Female and male patients in both ranibizumab and bevacizumab groups were also compared. For female patients, there was a significant difference in the average VAS pain scores between groups (p = 0.016), although not for male patients (p = 0.078).

CONCLUSIONS

Thirty-gauge intravitreal injection is more comfortable than 27-gauge injection. Injection of bevacizumab with 30-gauge needle syringes may be more tolerable for patients.

Changes in Central Macular Thickness following Single Session Multispot Panretinal Photocoagulation

Purpose. To determine changes in central subfield (CSF) macular thickness and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) following single session, multispot panretinal photocoagulation (PRP). Methods. Forty eyes of 33 patients with newly diagnosed proliferative diabetic retinopathy were treated with single session, 20-millisecond, multispot PRP. Changes in central macular thickness and BCVA at 4- and 12-week follow-up were compared to baseline measurements. Results. Each eye received a mean (SD) of 2,750 (686.7) laser spots. At 4-week follow-up, there was a statistically significant 24.0 μm increase in mean CSF thickness (P = 0.001), with a 17.4 μm increase from baseline at 12-week follow-up (P = 0.002). Mean logMAR BCVA increased by 0.05 logMAR units (P = 0.03) at 4-week follow-up. At 12-week follow-up, BCVA had almost returned to normal with only an increase of 0.02 logMAR units compared to baseline (P = 0.39). Macular edema occurred in 2 eyes (5%) at 12-week follow-up. Conclusions. Macular thickening occurs following single session, 20-millisecond, multispot PRP, with a corresponding, mild change in BCVA. However, the incidence of macular edema appears to be low in these patients. Single session, 20-millisecond, multispot PRP appears to be a safe treatment for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

Laser photocoagulation for proliferative diabetic retinopathy

BACKGROUND

Diabetic retinopathy is a complication of diabetes in which high blood sugar levels damage the blood vessels in the retina. Sometimes new blood vessels grow in the retina, and these can have harmful effects; this is known as proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Laser photocoagulation is an intervention that is commonly used to treat diabetic retinopathy, in which light energy is applied to the retina with the aim of stopping the growth and development of new blood vessels, and thereby preserving vision.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of laser photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy compared to no treatment or deferred treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 3 June 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where people (or eyes) with diabetic retinopathy were randomly allocated to laser photocoagulation or no treatment or deferred treatment. We excluded trials of lasers that are no longer in routine use. Our primary outcome was the proportion of people who lost 15 or more letters (3 lines) of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) as measured on a logMAR chart at 12 months. We also looked at longer-term follow-up of the primary outcome at two to five years. Secondary outcomes included mean best corrected distance visual acuity, severe visual loss, mean near visual acuity, progression of diabetic retinopathy, quality of life, pain, loss of driving licence, vitreous haemorrhage and retinal detachment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods as expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors selected studies and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a large number of trials of laser photocoagulation of diabetic retinopathy (n = 83) but only five of these studies were eligible for inclusion in the review, i.e. they compared laser photocoagulation with currently available lasers to no (or deferred) treatment. Three studies were conducted in the USA, one study in the UK and one study in Japan. A total of 4786 people (9503 eyes) were included in these studies. The majority of participants in four of these trials were people with proliferative diabetic retinopathy; one trial recruited mainly people with non-proliferative retinopathy. Four of the studies evaluated panretinal photocoagulation with argon laser and one study investigated selective photocoagulation of non-perfusion areas. Three studies compared laser treatment to no treatment and two studies compared laser treatment to deferred laser treatment. All studies were at risk of performance bias because the treatment and control were different and no study attempted to produce a sham treatment. Three studies were considered to be at risk of attrition bias.At 12 months there was little difference between eyes that received laser photocoagulation and those allocated to no treatment (or deferred treatment), in terms of loss of 15 or more letters of visual acuity (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.11; 8926 eyes; 2 RCTs, low quality evidence). Longer term follow-up did not show a consistent pattern, but one study found a 20% reduction in risk of loss of 15 or more letters of visual acuity at five years with laser treatment. Treatment with laser reduced the risk of severe visual loss by over 50% at 12 months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.86; 9276 eyes; 4 RCTs, moderate quality evidence). There was a beneficial effect on progression of diabetic retinopathy with treated eyes experiencing a 50% reduction in risk of progression of diabetic retinopathy (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.64; 8331 eyes; 4 RCTs, low quality evidence) and a similar reduction in risk of vitreous haemorrhage (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.85; 224 eyes; 2 RCTs, low quality evidence).None of the studies reported near visual acuity or patient-relevant outcomes such as quality of life, pain, loss of driving licence or adverse effects such as retinal detachment.We did not plan any subgroup analyses, but there was a difference in baseline risk in participants with non-proliferative retinopathy compared to those with proliferative retinopathy. With the small number of included studies we could not do a formal subgroup analysis comparing effect in proliferative and non-proliferative retinopathy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence that laser photocoagulation is beneficial in treating proliferative diabetic retinopathy. We judged the evidence to be moderate or low, depending on the outcome. This is partly related to reporting of trials conducted many years ago, after which panretinal photocoagulation has become the mainstay of treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy.Future Cochrane Reviews on variations in the laser treatment protocol are planned. Future research on laser photocoagulation should investigate the combination of laser photocoagulation with newer treatments such as anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs).