Pain response and follow-up of patients undergoing panretinal laser photocoagulation with reduced exposure times

Purpose - We performed a study of laser panretinal photocoagulation in 20 patients with proliferative retinopathy. We compared short exposure, high-energy laser settings with conventional settings, using a 532?nm, frequency doubled, Neodymium–Yag laser and assessed the patients in terms of pain experienced and effectiveness of treatment. Methods - Twenty patients having panretinal photocoagulation for the first time underwent random allocation to treatment of the superior and inferior hemi-retina. Treatment A used ‘conventional’ parameters: exposure time 0.1?s, power sufficient to produce a visible grey-white burns, spot size 300?µm. The other hemi- retina was treated with treatment B using exposure 0.02?s, 300?µm and sufficient power to have similar endpoint. All patients were asked to evaluate severity of pain on a visual analogue scale. (0=no pain, 10=most severe pain). All patients were masked as to the type of treatment and the order of carrying out the treatment on each patient was randomised. Patients underwent fundus photography and were followed up for 6–45 months. Results - Seventeen patients had proliferative diabetic retinopathy, two had ischaemic central retinal vein occlusion and one had ocular ischaemic syndrome. The mean response to treatment A was 5.11, compared to 1.40 treatment B, on the visual analogue scale, which was statistically significant (P=0.001). All patients preferred treatment B. Further treatments, if required, were performed with treatment B parameters and long-term follow-up has shown no evidence of undertreatment. Conclusions - Shortening exposure time of retinal laser is significantly less painful but equally effective as conventional parameters.

Pain response in patients undergoing panretinal photocoagulation by continuos wave Nd-YAG laser

Purpose: Current panretinal laser photocoagulative parameters are based on the Diabetic Retinopathy Study, which used exposures of 0.1 - 0.5 second to achieve moderate intensity retinal burns. Unfortunately, many patients find these settings painful. We wanted to investigate whether reducing exposure time and increasing power to give the same endpoint, is more comfortable and effective. Methods: 20 patients having panretinal photocoagulation for the first time underwent random allocation to two forms of laser treatment: half of the retinal area scheduled for treatment was treated with Green Yag laser with conventional parameters {exposure time 0.1 second (treatment A), power density sufficient to produce a visible grey - white burns}. The other half treated with shorter exposure 0.02 second (treatment B). All patient were asked to evaluate severity of pain on a visual analogue scale ranging from 0 - 10 (0 = no pain, 10 = most severe pain). All patients were masked as to the type of treatment. The order of carrying out the treatment on each patient was randomised. Fundus photographs were taken of each hemifundus to confirm treatment. Results: Of the 20 patients, 17 had proliferative diabetic retinopathy, 2 had ischaemic central retinal vein occlusion and one had ocular ischaemic syndrome. The average pain response to treatment A was 5.11 on a visual analogue scale with a mean power of 0.178 Watt; the average pain response to treatment B was 1.40 with a mean power of 0.489 Watt. Short exposure laser burns were significantly less painful (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Shortening exposure time with increased power is more comfortable for patients undergoing panretinal photocoagulation than conventional parameters.