Hassanpoor Narges, Ahoor Mohamadhosein, Latifi Atena, Niyousha Mohamadreza
Retina & Vitreous Service, Nikookari Eye Hospital, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Ophthalmologist, Nikookari Eye Hospital, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
J Lasers Med Sci. 2022 Sep 26;13:e40. doi: 10.34172/jlms.2022.40. eCollection 2022.
In this study, we aimed to compare visual field defects in two different laser methods, namely conventional pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) and pattern scanning PRP, in patients with either proliferative diabetic or very severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy. This study was a randomized, single-blind, prospective clinical trial. Twenty patients with either proliferative or very severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy were enrolled in this study. Notably, only those patients with the same severity scores in both eyes were included. One eye underwent the conventional PRP laser and another eye underwent the pattern scanning PRP laser simultaneously. Swedish interactive threshold algorithms (SITA) standard perimetry was performed at baseline and one month after the treatment, and visual field defects were evaluated. The pattern standard deviation (PSD) significantly increased in both the pattern and conventional PRP laser groups after one month. The change of the PSD at baseline and after the treatment was not significant between the groups. The mean deviation (MD) level significantly decreased in the conventional group after one month. The change in the MD level at baseline and after the treatment was not significant between the pattern and conventional groups. The change in the mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between the groups was not significant. Changes in visual acuity and visual fields of the patients between the pattern and conventional PRP laser methods showed no significant difference; however, the pattern PRP method caused a smaller reduction in overall sensitivity in the patient's visual field.
在本研究中，我们旨在比较传统全视网膜光凝（PRP）和模式扫描PRP这两种不同激光方法对增殖性糖尿病视网膜病变或非常严重的非增殖性糖尿病视网膜病变患者视野缺损的影响。本研究为一项随机、单盲、前瞻性临床试验。20例增殖性或非常严重的非增殖性糖尿病视网膜病变患者纳入本研究。值得注意的是，仅纳入双眼严重程度评分相同的患者。一只眼同时接受传统PRP激光治疗，另一只眼接受模式扫描PRP激光治疗。在基线期和治疗后1个月进行瑞典交互式阈值算法（SITA）标准视野检查，并评估视野缺损情况。1个月后，模式扫描PRP激光组和传统PRP激光组的模式标准差（PSD）均显著增加。两组间基线期和治疗后PSD的变化无显著差异。1个月后，传统组的平均偏差（MD）水平显著降低。模式扫描PRP组和传统组间基线期和治疗后MD水平的变化无显著差异。两组间平均最佳矫正视力（BCVA）的变化无显著差异。模式扫描PRP激光方法和传统PRP激光方法在患者视力和视野变化方面无显著差异；然而，模式扫描PRP方法导致患者视野整体敏感度降低幅度较小。
