Comparison of pain experience and time required for pre-planned navigated peripheral laser versus conventional multispot laser in the treatment of diabetic retinopathy
- 16 Downloads
To compare the pain and the duration of a panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) session using a conventional multispot laser (Quantel Medical) versus the Navilas® laser.
Treatment-naïve patients requiring bilateral PRP for diabetic retinopathy were included. For each patient, PRP was carried out using a conventional multispot laser (Quantel Medical, 577 nm) in one eye and the other eye was treated with the Navilas laser (OD-OS, 577 nm). For both PRP treatments, similar parameters (same power, exposure time, number, size and spacing of the spots) were used. For each eye, the duration of the session and the pain, measured using respectively a chronometer and a visual analogic scale (VAS), were recorded.
Thirty-two eyes of sixteen patients (mean age 57 ± 13 SD, range 28–74), 11 men and 5 women, have been included. A mean of 1289 (1000–1500) spots with a mean power of 352 mW (300–450 mW) and an exposure time of 27 ms (20–30 ms) were delivered. The PRP session with the Navilas laser (mean time of 5.2 ± 0.8 min) was faster than with the conventional multispot laser (6.6 ± 1.1 min) (p = 0.02). Laser-induced pain was significantly reduced (VAS of 2.4 ± 1.6) using the Navilas laser compared to conventional laser (VAS: 7.1 ± 2) (p < 0.001).
The PRP sessions using the Navilas laser were significantly faster and less painful than with a conventional multispot laser in our series.
KeywordsNavilas® Navigated-PRP Conventional multispot laser Diabetic retinopathy
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 5.Sivaprasad S, Prevost AT, Vasconcelos JC et al (2017) Clinical efficacy of intravitreal aflibercept versus panretinal photocoagulation for best corrected visual acuity in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy at 52 weeks (CLARITY): a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 2b, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 389(10085):2193–2203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.American Academy of Ophthalmology Retina/Vitreous Panel (2016) Preferred practice pattern® guidelines. Diabetic retinopathy. American Academy of Ophthalmology, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
- 11.Higaki M, Nozaki M, Yoshida M, Ogura Y (2018) Less expansion of short-pulse laser scars in panretinal photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy. J Ophthal 2018:9371895Google Scholar