Lucena Célia Regina Farias de Araújo, Ramos Filho José Afonso, Messias André Márcio Vieira, Silva José Aparecido da, Almeida Felipe Piacentini Paes de, Scott Ingrid Ursula, Ribeiro Jefferson Augusto Santana, Jorge Rodrigo
Department of Ophthalmology, Ribeirão Preto School of Medicine, Universidade de São Paulo - USP - Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2013 Jan-Feb;76(1):18-20. doi: 10.1590/s0004-27492013000100006.
To compare pain related to intravitreal injection and panretinal photocoagulation in the management of patients with high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy.
Prospective study including patients with high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy and no prior laser treatment randomly assigned to receive panretinal photocoagulation (PRP group) or panretinal photocoagulation plus intravitreal ranibizumab (PRPplus group). In all patients, panretinal photocoagulation was administered in two sessions (weeks 0 and 2), and intravitreal ranibizumab was administered at the end of the first laser session in the PRPplus group. Retreatment was performed at weeks 16 and 32 if active new vessels were detected at fluorescein angiography. Patients in the PRPplus group received intravitreal ranibizumab and patients in the PRP group received 500-µm additional spots per quadrant of active new vessels. After the end of retreatment, a 100-degree Visual Analog Scale was used for pain score estimation. The patient was asked about the intensity of pain during the whole procedure (retinal photocoagulation session or intravitreal ranibizumab injection). Statistics for pain score comparison were performed using a non-parametric test (Wilcoxon rank sums).
Seventeen patients from PRPplus and 14 from PRP group were evaluated for pain scores. There were no significant differences between both groups regarding gender, glycosylated hemoglobin and disease duration. Mean intravitreal injection pain (±SEM) was 4.7 ± 2.1 and was significantly lower (p<0.0001) than mean panretinal photocoagulation pain (60.8 ± 7.8). Twelve out of 17 patients from the PRPplus group referred intensity pain score of zero, while the minimal score found in PRP group was found in one patient with 10.5.
In patients with high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy who needed retreatment for persistent new vessels, there was more comfort for the patient when retreatment was performed with an intravitreal injection in comparison with retinal photocoagulation. Further larger studies are necessary to confirm our preliminary findings.
比较在高危增殖性糖尿病视网膜病变患者管理中玻璃体内注射和全视网膜光凝相关的疼痛。
前瞻性研究,纳入高危增殖性糖尿病视网膜病变且既往未接受过激光治疗的患者,随机分为接受全视网膜光凝组(PRP组)或全视网膜光凝联合玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗组(PRP加组)。所有患者均分两次进行全视网膜光凝(第0周和第2周),PRP加组在第一次激光治疗结束时给予玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗。如果在荧光素血管造影中检测到活动性新生血管,则在第16周和第32周进行再次治疗。PRP加组患者接受玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗,PRP组患者对每个象限的活动性新生血管额外增加500μm光斑。再次治疗结束后,使用100度视觉模拟量表进行疼痛评分评估。询问患者在整个过程(视网膜光凝治疗或玻璃体内注射雷珠单抗)中的疼痛强度。使用非参数检验(Wilcoxon秩和检验)进行疼痛评分比较的统计分析。
对PRP加组的17例患者和PRP组的14例患者进行了疼痛评分评估。两组在性别、糖化血红蛋白和病程方面无显著差异。玻璃体内注射的平均疼痛(±标准误)为4.7±2.1,显著低于全视网膜光凝的平均疼痛(60.8±7.8)(p<0.0001)。PRP加组的17例患者中有12例报告疼痛强度评分为零,而PRP组中最低评分出现在1例评分为10.5的患者中。
在因持续性新生血管需要再次治疗的高危增殖性糖尿病视网膜病变患者中,与视网膜光凝相比,玻璃体内注射进行再次治疗时患者更舒适。需要进一步开展更大规模的研究来证实我们的初步发现。