TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of New Visual Disturbances after Superior versus Nasal/Temporal Laser Peripheral Iridotomy
T2 - A Prospective Randomized Trial
AU - Srinivasan, Kavitha
AU - Zebardast, Nazlee
AU - Krishnamurthy, Palaniswamy
AU - Abdul Kader, Mohideen
AU - Raman, Ganesh V.
AU - Rajendrababu, Sharmila
AU - Venkatesh, Rengaraj
AU - Ramulu, Pradeep Y.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 American Academy of Ophthalmology
PY - 2018/3
Y1 - 2018/3
N2 - Purpose: To determine whether laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) location affects postoperative dysphotopsia symptoms. Design: Multicenter, randomized, prospective, single-masked trial. Participants: Five hundred fifty-nine South Indian patients 30 years of age or older diagnosed as primary angle-closure suspects (PACSs) or with primary angle closure (PAC) or primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) in both eyes. Methods: Patients were randomized to either bilateral superior or bilateral nasal/temporal LPI. Occurrence of new visual disturbances was evaluated before and 2 weeks after LPI using a questionnaire based on the 7-item dysphotopsia symptoms described by Spaeth et al. Main Outcome Measures: New-onset dysphotopsia symptoms. Results: Superior LPI (n = 285) and nasal/temporal LPI (n = 274) patients were matched for age (P = 0.6), gender (P = 0.7), and distribution of PACS versus PAC or PACG (P = 0.7). Similar initial laser energy settings were used in both groups (P = 0.3), although superior LPIs required more shots (P = 0.006) and greater total energy (P < 0.001) than nasal/temporal LPIs. No significant differences in postoperative anterior chamber reaction (P = 0.7) or LPI area (P = 0.9) were noted between the 2 groups. No group differences were noted regarding the proportion of patients demonstrating 1 or more dysphotopsia symptoms before LPI (15.8% for superior vs. 13.9% for nasal/temporal; P = 0.1) or any individual dysphotopsia symptom (P > 0.2 for all). After LPI, 8.9% of all patients reported 1 or more new symptoms, the most common consisting of linear dysphotopsias, glare, and blurring in 2.7%, 4.3%, and 4.3% of patients, respectively. Patients undergoing superior LPI were not more likely to describe the new onset of 1 or more dysphotopsia symptoms as compared with patients undergoing nasal/temporal LPI (8.4% vs. 9.5%; P = 0.7), nor did the frequency of any new individual symptoms differ by group (P ≥ 0.3 for all). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, neither LPI location nor LPI area nor total laser energy predicted higher odds of new postoperative dysphotopsias (P > 0.1 for all). Conclusions: Laser peripheral iridotomy likely is safe with respect to visual dysphotopsias regardless of location, LPI size, and amount of laser energy used.
AB - Purpose: To determine whether laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) location affects postoperative dysphotopsia symptoms. Design: Multicenter, randomized, prospective, single-masked trial. Participants: Five hundred fifty-nine South Indian patients 30 years of age or older diagnosed as primary angle-closure suspects (PACSs) or with primary angle closure (PAC) or primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) in both eyes. Methods: Patients were randomized to either bilateral superior or bilateral nasal/temporal LPI. Occurrence of new visual disturbances was evaluated before and 2 weeks after LPI using a questionnaire based on the 7-item dysphotopsia symptoms described by Spaeth et al. Main Outcome Measures: New-onset dysphotopsia symptoms. Results: Superior LPI (n = 285) and nasal/temporal LPI (n = 274) patients were matched for age (P = 0.6), gender (P = 0.7), and distribution of PACS versus PAC or PACG (P = 0.7). Similar initial laser energy settings were used in both groups (P = 0.3), although superior LPIs required more shots (P = 0.006) and greater total energy (P < 0.001) than nasal/temporal LPIs. No significant differences in postoperative anterior chamber reaction (P = 0.7) or LPI area (P = 0.9) were noted between the 2 groups. No group differences were noted regarding the proportion of patients demonstrating 1 or more dysphotopsia symptoms before LPI (15.8% for superior vs. 13.9% for nasal/temporal; P = 0.1) or any individual dysphotopsia symptom (P > 0.2 for all). After LPI, 8.9% of all patients reported 1 or more new symptoms, the most common consisting of linear dysphotopsias, glare, and blurring in 2.7%, 4.3%, and 4.3% of patients, respectively. Patients undergoing superior LPI were not more likely to describe the new onset of 1 or more dysphotopsia symptoms as compared with patients undergoing nasal/temporal LPI (8.4% vs. 9.5%; P = 0.7), nor did the frequency of any new individual symptoms differ by group (P ≥ 0.3 for all). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, neither LPI location nor LPI area nor total laser energy predicted higher odds of new postoperative dysphotopsias (P > 0.1 for all). Conclusions: Laser peripheral iridotomy likely is safe with respect to visual dysphotopsias regardless of location, LPI size, and amount of laser energy used.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032720201&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032720201&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.09.015
DO - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.09.015
M3 - Article
C2 - 29096997
AN - SCOPUS:85032720201
SN - 0161-6420
VL - 125
SP - 345
EP - 351
JO - Ophthalmology
JF - Ophthalmology
IS - 3
ER -