london euretina

This meeting has been awarded 20 CME credits

Security Notice

Please note that Kuoni are our only destination management company. Other venders indicating that are operating for the society should be ignored. We never use western union as a payment portal

Posters

Comparison between navigated pattern and conventional pattern for pan retinal photocoagulation

Poster Details

First Author: J.Chhablani INDIA

Co Author(s):    A. Mathai   P.R. Kumari   F. Arevalo   V. Gupta   I. Kozak      0   0 0   0 0   0 0   0 0

Abstract Details



Purpose:

To compare clinical outcomes of conventional and navigated pattern laser for panretinal photocoagulation.

Setting:

Tertiary eye care center

Methods:

74 Patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy were randomized into 4 groups for photocoagulation treatment (navigated pattern 30ms (NAVILAS-30): 21; conventional pattern 30ms (PASCAL-30): 22 patients; navigated pattern 100ms (NAVILAS-100): 17 and pattern single spot 100ms (PASCAL-100): 14 patients). Change in visual acuity and number of additional laser photocoagulation was documented at baseline and at last follow up. For a subset of the patients the pain perception was measured by using a visual analog pain scale and time for laser application was measured.

Results:

No adverse events were detected. Mean Follow up time was 5 months with a range from 2 to 18 months (53 ±11 years). The number of applied spots was 1763 ± 684 with conventional pattern having a significantly much higher number of spots (mean 2334 ± 684; p<0.001). There was no statistically significant visual acuity change in visual acuity among the groups. However, 100ms groups have slightly more improvement compared to 30 ms groups. Additional laser treatment was required in 10/21 (47%) eyes in NAVILAS-30, 10/22 (45%) eyes in PASCAL-30, 7/17 (41%) eyes in NAVILAS-100 and 5/14 (35%) eyes in PASCAL-100. Only two eyes required vitreoretinal surgery, one each of 30ms group. None of the 100ms eyes required surgery. The pain experience was consistently lower with navigated laser than with the conventional laser, especially when comparing 100 ms groups (p=0.02). Required treatment time was as well consistently lower in navigated groups as compared to conventional groups (p =<0.05).

Conclusions:

No adverse events were detected. Mean Follow up time was 5 months with a range from 2 to 18 months (53 ±11 years). The number of applied spots was 1763 ± 684 with conventional pattern having a significantly much higher number of spots (mean 2334 ± 684; p<0.001). There was no statistically significant visual acuity change among the groups. However, 100ms groups have slightly more improvement compared to 30 ms groups. Additional laser treatment was required in 10/21 (47%) eyes in NAVILAS-30, 10/22 (45%) eyes in PASCAL-30, 7/17 (41%) eyes in NAVILAS-100 and 5/14 (35%) eyes in PASCAL-100. Only two eyes required vitreoretinal surgery, one each of 30ms group. None of the 100ms eyes required surgery. The pain experience was consistently lower with navigated laser than with the conventional laser, especially when comparing 100 ms groups (p=0.02). Required treatment time was as well consistently lower in navigated groups as compared to conventional groups (p =<0.05).

Back to previous
EURETINA, Temple House, Temple Road, Blackrock, Co Dublin. | Phone: 00353 1 2100092 | Fax: 00353 1 2091112 | Email: euretina@euretina.org

Privacy policyHotel Terms and Conditions Cancellation policy