Interventions for relieving pain associated with panretinal photocoagulation: a prospective randomized trial

The efficacy of oral pain relief cocktail during pan-retinal photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy: a randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

to evaluate the pain-relieving effect of analgesic combinations during pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) in patients with non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR).

METHODS

This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients with severe NPDR without previous history of PRP were included in the study. Both eyes of the patients were treated with a pan-retinal photocoagulation procedure. The retina was divided into four quadrants and the treatment plan for patients submitted to PRP was divided into four sessions. Different oral medications were given to patients 1 hour before the procedure. Capsules containing a combination of analgesic drugs (including 325 mg acetaminophen, 200 mg ibuprofen, and 40 mg caffeine, referred to as N), pregabalin capsules (75 mg, referred to as P), a combination of N capsules and P capsules (referred to as NP), and the placebo were used in each session. Each patient scored the pain sensation immediately after the procedure using a visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULT

60 eyes of 30 patients were studied. The mean value of VAS in patients receiving the placebo was 3.3 ± 1.822 units, while this scale was 3.067 ± 1.507, 3.5 ± 1.479, and 3.5 ± 1.77 in the N, P, and NP consumed patients, respectively. There was no significant difference in VAS levels and the patient's vital signs between different sessions (P = 0.512).

CONCLUSION

No evidence of the pain-relieving effect of N, P or NP was found during PRP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

IRCT20200915048724N1. Registered 20 October 2020, https://www.irct.ir/trial/51345.

Transnasal sphenopalatine ganglion block for pain relief during panretinal photocoagulation laser for diabetic retinopathy: a pre and post interventional study

This study was performed to utilize transnasal Sphenopalatine Ganglion (SPG) block for pain reliving during panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) in diabetic patients with diabetic retinopathy. This pre and post interventional study was performed on 20 patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. The first PRP treatment session of all the patients is performed with no transnasal SPG block, but before holding the second session, all the patients underwent transnasal SPG block and pain levels during and after PRP were compared to each other. Before the transnasal SPG block, each nostril of all the cases was inspected for finding any obstruction in each PRP session. Transnasal SPG block was also performed in with 2% lidocaine. The mean age of the included cases was 52.84 ± 8.62 years old (from 36 to 72 years old). All the cases underwent two PRP lasers treatment sessions with the same characteristic (spot size, power and duration) for each patient. In the first and second PRP treatment sessions, the mean NRS scores were obtained immediately after the PRP laser (8.4 vs. 4.2), 15 min (8.2 vs. 4.2), 1 h (8.0 vs. 4.1), and 24 h (5.4 vs. 3.6) after the PRP respectively. The mean NRS scores significantly reduced during the second PRP treatment session compared to the first session (p < 0.001). Transnasal SPG block is a safe and effective strategy used for relieving pain caused by the PRP laser treatment in patients with diabetic retinopathy.

Pain Perception of Patients Undergoing Laser Panretinal Photocoagulation: Comparison of Single-Spot Versus Multispot Techniques

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To compare pain intensity with single-spot versus multispot technique in laser panretinal photocoagulation, using a 532-nm, solid-state laser system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, interventional, randomized, single-masked comparison trial. Patients received two types of intervention: conventional single-spot technique, with an exposure time of 150 ms, and multispot technique, done with an exposure time of 20 ms, Both techniques used power sufficient to produce visible gray-white burns, and spot size of 20 μm. Participants received both treatments in the same eye, each one in one hemiretina, and were randomized to receive first single- or multispot technique and to the initial site of treatment. We assessed pain intensity using a numerical pain scale immediately after completion of each treatment.

RESULTS

A significantly lower pain scale was observed with the multispot when compared with the single-spot technique (coefficient [Coef]: -1.61; 95% CI, -2.49 to -0.74; P < .001), which was not affected by treatment order, the hemiretina treated, or treatment duration (P > .05). Among demographic characteristics, multiracial patients had a pain scale 1.25 greater than that of White patients (Coef: 1.25; 95% CI, 0.47 to 2.04; P = .002), but there is no effect of age or sex on the pain scale (P > .05). Regarding treatment duration, a shorter procedure was also observed in the multispot technique (Coef: -1.13; 95% CI, -1.43 to -0.82; P < .001), and it was not affected by order of treatment (P = .098), hemiretina (P = .327), pain (P = .141), or demographic data, such as age, sex, and race (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The use of the multispot technique, with a short pulse duration (20 ms), is significantly less painful and less time-consuming for patients with proliferative retinopathy compared with the conventional single-spot technique using an exposure time of 150 ms. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2022;53:40-45.].

Pre-Emptive Topical Ketorolac Tromethamine 0.5% for Panretinal Photocoagulation

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of topical ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% given pre-emptively a day before, for alleviating pain in patients undergoing panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) treatment. Methods: A controlled single-blinded study was conducted on 33 patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR; severe nonproliferative DR, proliferative DR, or advanced diabetic eye disease) who required PRP treatment in both eyes simultaneously. Each eye of the patients was randomly assigned for ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% eyedrop or placebo. Both eyedrop bottles were randomly labeled. Eyedrops were self-administered by the patients, 4 times a day before the procedure (at 6 am, 12 noon, 6 pm, and 12 midnight) and every 15 min for 1 h (4 times) before the laser. Each patient was subjected to PRP using a Visulas 532s Zeiss device set to spot size 200 μm, time 0.10 s, and ∼600 burns in each eye. The pain score was evaluated immediately after treatment in each eye independently with Scott's visual analog scale (VAS) and the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). Results: VAS pain score in ketorolac-treated eyes (median 3.0, interquatile range [IQR] ±2.5) was lower than in placebo-treated eyes (median 5.0, IQR ±3.0). Total Pain Rate Index score from MPQ was lower in ketorolac-treated eyes (median 3.0, IQR ±3.0) than in placebo-treated eyes (median 3.0, IQR ±2.5). Both pain score differences are statistically significant with P ˂ 0.05. Conclusion: Topical ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% given pre-emptively a day before is effective in alleviating pain in patients undergoing PRP treatment.

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.

Comparison of navigated laser and conventional single-spot laser system for induced pain during panretinal photocoagulation

To compare the panretinal photocoagulation (PRP)-induced pain response between novel navigated laser (Navilas) and conventional single-spot laser. The eyes were randomly assigned to Navilas or conventional laser. Contralateral eyes underwent PRP with the other system with 30 min resting interval. Pulse duration was 100 ms in conventional laser and 30 ms or 100 ms in Navilas and power setting was enough to create gray-white light burn on both devices. Pain response was evaluated by verbal scale (VS) (0-4) and visual analog scale (VAS) (0-10) after each PRP application. The mean age of 70 patients (140 eyes) was 62.52 ± 9.49 years. Mean power and spot numbers for Navilas and conventional laser were 291.9 ± 85.3 mW vs 368.4 ± 72.0 mW, and 375.4 ± 108.4 vs 374.2 ± 105.0 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.53, respectively). Pain scores for Navilas and conventional laser were 1.19 ± 0.73 and 1.99 ± 0.84 for VS and 2.41 ± 1.65 and 4.74 ± 2.17 for VAS (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). More comfortable PRP is achieved with Navilas system in comparison with conventional single-spot laser system. However, small number of patients treated with same pulse duration and different contact lenses used for two systems should be taken into consideration. Besides, we did not report comparative clinical efficiency of either laser system.

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.

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.].

Comparison of Efficacy and Side Effects of Multispot Lasers and Conventional Lasers for Diabetic Retinopathy Treatment

Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is a standard treatment for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Conventional laser (CL) therapy is performed in one or more sessions in single spot mode. Visual disabilities have been reported after treatment with CL, including central vision loss due to macular edema and peripheral visual field loss resulting from extensive inner retinal scarring. Multispot laser (MSL) photocoagulation has recently been introduced to clinical practice. Studies comparing PRP conducted with MSL and CL have reported that MSLs resulted in less retinal tissue damage and pain, and greater patient comfort compared to CL. The aim of this review was to compare the efficacy and side effects of MSLs and CLs for diabetic retinopathy treatment.

Metamizole versus placebo for panretinal photocoagulation pain control: a prospective double-masked randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Diabetic retinopathy is one of most common and threatening ocular diseases. Many of these patients need to be submitted to panretinal photocoagulation (PRP), experiencing a significant level of pain. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of oral metamizole in reducing pain during PRP in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and very severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (VSNDR).

METHODS

Patients from a single center with PDR or VSNDR and indication of bilateral PRP were recruited for a double-masked, controlled, prospective study. The treated eyes were randomly assigned in two groups, and each patient had one eye assigned per group. Group A received 1000 mg of metamizole and group B received a placebo pill 40 min before the laser treatment. The groups were switched for the treatment of the fellow eye. Each patient scored the pain sensation immediately after each PRP section using Scott's visual analogue scale (VAS). The paired Student t test was used to measure the significance between the two groups VAS scores, with significance level adopted of p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients were recruited. The level of pain was significantly lower when submitted to PRP after oral metamizole treatment compared to placebo (p = 0.002). The mean pain scores for groups A and B were 4.72 ± 1.708 and 5.89 ± 1.967, respectively. The minimum/maximum scores within groups A and B were 1/8 and 1/10, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of 1000 mg of metamizole 40 min before PRP significantly reduces the pain associated with the procedure in patients with PDR or VSNDR.

Vitrectomy and panretinal photocoagulation reduces the occurrence of neovascular glaucoma in central retinal vein occlusion with vitreous hemorrhage

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the best-corrected visual acuity and occurrence of neovascular glaucoma with vitrectomy (VT) and panretinal photocoagulation or without VT in central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) associated with vitreous hemorrhage (VH).

METHODS

The charts from patients diagnosed as having CRVO with VH at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (Taiwan) were reviewed. They were grouped based on whether they also underwent VT. The main outcome measurements were the best-corrected visual acuity and incidence of neovascular glaucoma.

RESULTS

There were 83 eyes that had CRVO with VH from 83 patients (VT group, 56 eyes; non-VT group, 27 eyes). There was no significant difference between the VT and non-VT groups in terms of age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, lens status, and follow-up period. The non-VT group had a better best-corrected visual acuity (P = 0.018) and less VH (P = 0.025) than the VT group at baseline; however, the VT group had a better best-corrected visual acuity at the end of the follow-up than the non-VT group (P < 0.001). Most importantly, there was a higher neovascular glaucoma development (37%) in the non-VT group compared with that (14.3%) in the VT group (P = 0.025).

CONCLUSION

The visual outcomes of CRVO with VH are unfavorable whether VT was performed. However, VT and panretinal photocoagulation improved visual acuity and reduced the incidence of neovascular glaucoma in CRVO with VH.

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

BACKGROUND

To compare pain score of single spot short duration time (20 milliseconds) panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) with conventional (100 milliseconds) PRP in diabetic retinopathy.

METHODS

Sixty-six eyes from 33 patients with symmetrical severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (non-PDR) or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) were enrolled in this prospective randomized controlled trial. One eye of each patient was randomized to undergo conventional and the other eye to undergo short time PRP. Spot size of 200 μm was used in both laser types, and energy was adjusted to achieve moderate burn on the retina. Patients were asked to mark the level of pain felt during the PRP session for each eye on the visual analog scale (VAS) and were examined at 1 week, and at 1, 2, 4 and 6 months.

RESULTS

Sixteen women and 17 men with mean age 58.9 ± 7.8 years were evaluated. The conventional method required a mean power of 273 ± 107 mW, whereas the short duration method needed 721 ± 406 mW (P = 0.001). An average of 1,218 ± 441 spots were delivered with the conventional method and an average of 2,125 ± 503 spots were required with the short duration method (P = 0.001). Average pain score was 7.5 ± 1.14 in conventional group and 1.75 ± 0.87 in the short duration group (P = 0.001). At 1 week, 1 month, and 4 months following PRP, the mean changes of central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline in the conventional group remained 29.2 μm (P = 0.008), 40.0 μm (P = 0.001), and 40.2 μm (P = 0.007) greater than the changes in CMT for short time group.

CONCLUSION

Patient acceptance of short time single spot PRP was high, and well-tolerated in a single session by all patients. Moreover, this method is significantly less painful than but just as effective as conventional laser during 6 months of follow-up. The CMT change was more following conventional laser than short time laser.

Are ocular injection anesthetic blocks obsolete? Indications and guidelines

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this era of topical anesthesia for ocular surgery, anesthetic ocular blocks are still important when profound anesthesia and akinesia are required. Although injection ocular blocks, retrobulbar and peribulbar anesthesia, have been supplanted for most ocular surgery in many centers by sub-Tenon's irrigation block because of its superior safety profile, still worldwide, injection blocks remain popular.

RECENT FINDINGS

We present here the results of a survey of the literature published over the last 5 years to assess current international preferences for ocular anesthesia injection blocks. We discuss the reasons why sub-Tenon's anesthesia is not more universally popular and advocate for its greater acceptance because of safety. Specific narrow indications for performing injection ocular blocks are presented. Also, guidelines for performing retrobulbar anesthesia which reduce the risk of serious ocular complications are provided as well as our rationale for preferring retrobulbar to peribulbar anesthesia.

SUMMARY

Sub-Tenon's block should be performed in the operating theatre in preference to retrobulbar or peribulbar anesthesia except for limited indications. When injection ocular block is deemed necessary, we feel that retrobulbar anesthesia with the technique described may be safer than peribulbar anesthesia.

Manual acupuncture for relieving pain associated with panretinal photocoagulation

OBJECTIVE

The feasibility of manual acupuncture for reducing pain associated with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) was investigated.

METHODS

This was a prospective, comparative nonrandomized study on patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy who were receiving PRP treatment. The protocol of PRP included three sequential sessions of treatment at 2-week intervals. Both the acupuncture (acuPRP) and control groups had no acupuncture in the first session. In the second session, acupuncture was given to the acuPRP group only. The third session of PRP completed the laser treatment course. Acupuncture performed only at GB 37 (Guāngmíng) just before PRP, and the needle was removed after the treatment. An 11-point Likert-type verbal pain score test was given to all patients after each PRP treatment.

RESULTS

Of 34 patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy, 18 patients were allocated to the acuPRP group and 16 patients were allocated to the control group. After the first PRP treatment, there was no statistical difference in mean pain scores between the acuPRP and control groups (6.8±1.2 versus 6.3±2.1, respectively, p=0.383). After the second PRP treatment, the mean pain score in the acuPRP group was significantly lower, compared with the control group (3.9±1.8 versus 7.4±1.9, respectively, p<0.0001). Within the group, the mean pain scores were significantly higher during the second PRP treatment, compared with the first PRP treatment, in the control group (p=0.0003). In contrast, the mean pain scores were significantly lower during the second PRP treatment, compared with the first PRP treatment in the acuPRP group (p<0.0001). No adverse reactions or complications were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Acupuncture might help reduce pain during PRP treatment. However, further randomized studies are necessary to verify these preliminary results.

Analgesic effect of etoricoxib (Arcoxia®) 120 mg during retinal laser photocoagulation

Purpose

Panphotocoagulation reduces the risk of vision loss in proliferative diabetic retinopathy. However, not many patients tolerate this treatment well due to pain. Therefore, we evaluated the analgesic effect of etoricoxib during photocoagulation in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

Methods

A prospective, randomized, double-blind study was conducted on 44 consecutive patients eligible for panphotocoagulation due to proliferative diabetic retinopathy. During the first panphotocoagulation session, both groups were treated without medication. During the following session, the control group received a placebo pill while the other group received etoricoxib 120 mg. Both groups took the medicines 1 hour before the treatment. After each session, the patients quantified the level of pain on a subjective visual scale.

Results

A total of 52 patients were selected for the study and the data of 44 patients were analyzed. In the control group, the average level of pain in the first session was 7.68 (standard deviation 1.70), dropping to an average of 7.32 (standard deviation 1.39) after ingestion of placebo. Therefore, there was no statistical difference (p=0.1187). In contrast, the average level of pain without the drug in the group taking etoricoxib 120 mg was 7.95 (standard deviation 1.46) vs 5.18 (standard deviation 1.65) with the drug, a significant statistical difference (p<0.001).

Conclusions

Etoricoxib 120 mg reduces pain and can be used before panphotocoagulation. Data show that the medication is more effective against pain during photocoagulation than placebo.

Subconjunctival lidocaine before laser treatment: a randomized trial

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to determine whether subconjunctival anesthesia is effective at reducing pain associated with laser retinopexy.

DESIGN

This was a single-center, prospective, patient-masked, randomized, controlled trial.

PARTICIPANTS

In the primary study group, 65 patients were recruited. Thirty-two patients (32 eyes) received anesthetic injection, and 33 patients (33 eyes) received the sham injection. The crossover study group consisted of 28 patients (56 eyes).

METHODS

Between February 2008 and April 2008, all patients who were consecutively booked to undergo panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) or peripheral laser retinopexy (PLR) were invited to participate in the study. Patients were randomized to receive subconjunctival lidocaine injection or a sham injection before their intended laser retinal treatment. These patients were defined as our primary study group. Patients who required a second laser treatment received the opposite injection in a masked fashion before laser retinal treatment. These patients were defined as our crossover group. Patients in both the primary study group and the crossover group were masked to the treatment given. After the laser treatment, patients completed a pain questionnaire.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was incidence of pain. The secondary outcome was severity of pain.

RESULTS

Primary study group: In the anesthetic treatment group, 19 patients (59%) experienced pain compared with 32 patients (97%) in the sham treatment group (P<0.001). Among the patients who did experience pain, the average pain score was 3.6 in the anesthetic treatment group and 4.1 in the sham treatment group (P=0.55). Crossover study group: In the anesthetic treatment group, 12 patients (43%) experienced pain compared with 28 patients (100%) in the sham treatment group (P<0.001). In patients who did experience pain, the average pain score was 3.3 in the anesthetic treatment group and 4.6 in the sham treatment group. Twenty patients (71%) preferred anesthetic to sham treatments, 1 patient (4%) preferred sham over anesthetic, and 7 patients (25%) thought both laser treatments were the same.

CONCLUSIONS

Subconjunctival 2% lidocaine significantly reduces the incidence of pain in patients who receive PRP or PLR.

Oral acetaminophen (paracetamol) for additional analgesia in phacoemulsification cataract surgery performed using topical anesthesia Randomized double-masked placebo-controlled trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical analgesic efficacy of 1.0 g oral acetaminophen (paracetamol) given in addition to topical anesthesia before phacoemulsification cataract surgery.

SETTING

Inpatient and outpatient ophthalmology clinics, Bydgoszcz, Poland.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with age-related cataract having phacoemulsification under topical anesthesia (tetracaine 0.5%) were enrolled in a prospective double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study. Patients were randomly assigned to preoperative oral administration of a placebo medication or to oral administration of 1.0 g acetaminophen. The main outcome measure was intensity of pain during and after surgery. Pain intensity was measured using a 10 cm baseline visual analog scale and a discrete 5-category verbal rating scale.

RESULTS

The study comprised 160 consecutive patients (80 in each group). Intraoperatively, the mean visual analog scale pain intensity score was 2.17 +/- 1.81 in the placebo group and 1.45 +/- 1.17 in the acetaminophen group and the mean verbal rating scale score, 1.11 +/- 0.73 and 0.67 +/- 0.66, respectively (P<.01). Postoperatively, the mean visual analog scale score for pain was 1.47 +/- 1.39 in the placebo group and 0.56 +/- 0.61 in the acetaminophen group and the mean verbal rating scale score, 0.94 +/- 0.79 and 0.28 +/- 0.41, respectively (P<.01). There was no significant difference in patient behavior during surgery and no significant adverse effects of acetaminophen use.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative oral administration of acetaminophen 1.0 g was effective, convenient, safe, and cost effective in reducing intraoperative and postoperative pain in phacoemulsification performed using topical anesthesia.

Analgesic effects of tramadol during panretinal photocoagulation

Purpose

To evaluate the effectiveness of tramadol for the reduction of pain in panretinal photocoagulation (PRP).

Methods

A double-masked randomized controlled study was performed. Fifty-eight eyes in 29 patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy were enrolled. The eyes of the patients were randomized into two groups. Group A received an empty capsule. Group B received an oral intake of 100 mg tramadol. The capsule used in Group A had the same appearance as that used in Group B. Pain during PRP was assessed using a visual analog scale. Vital signs, including blood pressure and heart rate, were measured.

Results

The mean pain scores for groups A and B were 4.80±2.10 and 3.83±1.82 (p=0.09). There were no significant differences in the mean pain scores between the two groups. More patients in group A complained of greater pain than moderate intensity (visual analogue scale=4). Systemic blood pressure increased significantly in group A after laser treatment. However, there were no significant differences in the diastolic blood pressure changes between the two groups. We found no statistical correlation in the heart rate changes.

Conclusions

We failed to prove that tramadol is effective for pain relief because of the small sample size. However, tramadol was effective for the relief of more severe pain. It was also found to stabilize vital sign changes, such as systolic blood pressure during PRP.

Oral versus topical diclofenac for pain prevention during panretinal photocoagulation

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of pretreatment oral and topical diclofenac on pain reduction during panretinal laser photocoagulation (PRP) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR).

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

PARTICIPANTS AND CONTROLS

A total of 90 patients with PDR requiring PRP for the first time were assigned randomly to 1 of 3 study groups: oral diclofenac (n = 30), topical diclofenac (n = 31), or placebo (n = 29).

METHODS

Study medications were administrated before the first PRP treatment, and pain levels experienced during and 15 minutes after PRP were recorded on a visual analog scale (VAS). Pain levels during a second PRP session, performed on a later date with no pretreatment medications, also were recorded on a VAS.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were the mean VAS pain scores during the first PRP treatment. Secondary outcome measures were the mean VAS pain scores 15 minutes after the first PRP and during the second PRP, and reported side effects after the first PRP.

RESULTS

Mean VAS pain scores during the first PRP were: oral diclofenac, 25.7+/-19.9; topical diclofenac, 33.8+/-27.9; and placebo, 41.3+/-31.0. The pain score difference between oral diclofenac and placebo was both clinically significant (>or=13) and statistically significant (P = 0.02), whereas differences between oral and topical diclofenac (P = 0.20) and topical diclofenac and placebo (P = 0.33) were not. Multivariate regression analysis for age, gender, and total laser energy demonstrated lower pain levels for both oral diclofenac (P = 0.015) and topical diclofenac (P<0.0001) versus placebo, but no difference between oral and topical diclofenac (P = 0.67). For the first PRP, all 3 groups had lower mean pain scores at 15 minutes after treatment compared with during treatment (P<or=0.0003). Mean pain scores were higher during the second compared with the first PRP for the oral diclofenac (P = 0.02) and placebo (P = 0.05) groups. No significant rate difference for any side effect was found between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

When given in a single dose, oral diclofenac is an effective pretreatment analgesic agent for reducing the pain experienced during PRP for PDR.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.