Search

Purpose: To compare the pain responses of patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) undergoing panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) using either pattern scan laser (PASCAL) or navigated laser photocoagulation (NAVILAS)., Methods: Patients diagnosed with PDR were randomly assigned to undergo either PASCAL or NAVILAS photocoagulation treatment. PRP was performed using the multi-shot mode with a spot size of 200-400 µm and a pulse duration of 30 ms to obtain a white-grayish spot on the retina. Parameters were identical in both procedures. After 30 min of PRP application, patients were asked to verbally describe their pain perception as either "none," "mild," "moderate," "severe," or "very severe" using a verbal rating scale (VRS) and visual analog scale (VAS) by indicating a score from "0" to "10," representing the severity of pain from "no pain" to "severe pain.", Results: A total of 60 eyes of 60 patients (20 females and 40 males) diagnosed with PDR were treated. The mean age of patients was 62.22 ± 9.19 years, and the mean diabetes duration was 195.47 ± 94.54 months. The mean number of laser spots delivered during PRP was 389.47 ± 71.52 in the NAVILAS group and 392.70 ± 54.33 in the PASCAL group (p=0.57). The difference in pain responses between patients in the NAVILAS and PASCAL groups was significant with regard to the mean VRS (1.10 ± 0.67 and 1.47 ± 0.69, respectively; p=0.042) and mean VAS (2.13 ± 1.17 and 2.97 ± 1.35, respectively; p=0.034) scores., Conclusions: Pain responses in patients undergoing PRP with a 30-ms pulse duration were significantly milder in the NAVILAS group than in the PASCAL group.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia is the property of Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)