Navigated Pattern Laser System Versus Single-Spot Laser System for Postoperative Laser Retinopexy

Purpose: To compare three 360°-laser retinopexy (LRP) approaches (using navigated pattern laser system, single-spot slit-lamp (SL) laser delivery and single-spot indirect-ophthalmoscope (IO) laser delivery) in regard to procedure duration, procedural pain score, technical difficulties and the ability to achieve surgical goals. Patients and Methods. Eighty-six rhegmatogenous retinal detachment patients (86 eyes) were included in this prospective randomized study. Ten patients were underwent scleral buckling procedure, 37 patients were underwent vitrectomy, 7 patients had a combined procedure, and 32 patients had silicone oil tamponade. The mean procedural time, procedural pain score (using 4-point Verbal Rating Scale), number of laser burns, and achievement of the surgical goals were compared between three groups (pattern LRP (NAVILAS laser system), 36 patients; SL-LRP, 28 patients; and IO-LRP, 22 patients). Results. In the pattern LRP group, the time needed for LRP and pain level (12.4 ± 5.4 min and 1.1 ± 0.5 scores, respectively) were statistically significantly lower, whereas the number of applied laser burns (1108.7 ± 345.5) was higher compared to those in the SL-LRP group (21.7 ± 7.6 min, 1.8 ± 0.5 scores, and 714.5 ± 219.8 burns) and in the IO-LRP group (17.0 ± 10.1 min, 1.9 ± 0.5 scores, and 408.1 ± 95.5 burns). In the pattern LRP, SL-LRP, and IO-LRP groups, surgical goals were fully achieved in 28 (77.8 %), 17 (60.7 %), and 13 patients (59.1 %), respectively (p > 0.05). In the pattern LRP, SL-LRP and IO-LRP groups, the mean duration of follow-up after silicone oil removal was 6.6 ± 3.1 months, 8.1 ± 4.5 months and 7.1 ± 4.1 months, respectively (ANOVA3x, p = 0.35), with re-detachment found in 1 case (8.3 %), 2 cases (18.2 %), and 1 case (11.1 %), respectively. Conclusions. The navigated pattern approach allows improving the treatment time and pain in postoperative 360° LRP. Moreover, 360° pattern LRP is at least as effective in achieving the surgical goal as the conventional (slit-lamp or indirect ophthalmoscope) approaches with a single-spot laser.

1. Laidlaw D.A., Karia N., Bunc C., Aylward G.W., Gregor Z.J. Is prophylactic 360-degree laser retinopexy protective? Risk factors for retinal redetachment after removal of sili cone oil. Ophthalmology. 2002;109(1):153–158. DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(01)00848-X

2. Avitabile T., Longo A., Lentini G., Reibaldi A. Retinal detachment after silicone oil removal is prevented by 360 degrees laser treatment. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2008;92(11):1479–1482. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2008.140087

3. Iwase T., Jo Y.J., Oveson B.C. Effect of prophylactic 360° laser treatment for preven tion of retinal detachment after phacovitrectomy: (Prophylactic 360° laser treat ment for prevention of retinal detachment). BMC Ophthalmology. 2013;3:77. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2415-13-77

4. Koh H.J., Cheng L., Kosobucki B., Freeman W.R. Prophylactic intraopera tive 360 degrees laser retinopexy for prevention of retinal detachment. Retina. 2007;27(6):744–749. DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e318030ebd7

5. Dabour S.A. The outcome of surgical management for giant retinal tear more than 180°. BMC Ophthalmology. 2013;14:86. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2415-14-86

6. Ambresin A., Wolfensberger T.J., Bovey E.H. Management of giant retinal tears with vitrectomy, internal tamponade, and peripheral 360 degrees retinal photoco agulation. Retina. 2003;23(5):622–628.

7. Al-Khairi A.M., Al-Kahtani E., Kangave D., Abu El-Asrar A.M. Prognostic factors associated with outcomes after giant retinal tear management using perfluorocar bon liquids. European Journal of Ophthalmology. 2008;18(2):270–277.

8. Bouheraoua N., Hrarat L., Parsa C.F., Akesbi J., Sandali O., Goemaere I., Hami che T., Laroche L., Borderie V. Decreased Corneal Sensation and Subbasal Nerve Density, and Thinned Corneal Epithelium as a Result of 360-Degree Laser Retino pexy. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(10):2095–2102. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.06.010

9. Tosi G.M., Esposti P., Romeo N., Marigliani D., Cevenini G., Massimo P., Nuti E., Esposti G., Ripandelli G. The Incidence of Rhegmatogenous Retinal Complica tions in Macular Surgery After Prophylactic Preoperative Laser Retinopexy: A Retrospective Study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(14):e3283. DOI: 10.1097/ MD.0000000000003283

10. Chhablani J., Mathai A., Rani P., Gupta V, Arevalo JF, Kozak I. Comparison of conventional pattern and novel navigated panretinal photocoagulation in pro liferative diabetic retinopathy. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2014;55(6):3432–3438. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.14-13936.

11. Chhablani J., Sambhana S., Mathai A., Gupta V., Arevalo J.F., Kozak I. Clinical ef ficacy of navigated panretinal photocoagulation in proliferative diabetic retinopa thy. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2015;159(5):884–8895. DOI: 10.1016/j. ajo.2015.02.006

12. Бойко Э.В., Мальцев Д.С. Фокальная навигационная лазерная коагуля ция сетчатки с помощью ОКТ-картирования. Вестник офтальмологии. 2016;132(3):56–60. [Boiko E.V., Maltsev D.S. En face’ optical coherence to mography guided focal navigated laser photocoagulation. Annals of Ophthal mology = Vestnik oftal’mologii. 2016;132(3):56-60 (In Russ.)] DOI: 10.17116/ oftalma2016132356-60

13. Бойко Э.В., Мальцев Д.С. Планирование навигационной макулярной лазер ной коагуляции на основании конфокальной сканирующей лазерной офталь москопии. Российский офтальмологический журнал. 2016;3:12–17. [Boiko E.V., Maltsev D.S. Confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy planning for navigated macular laser photocoagulation. Russian ophthalmological journal = Rossiyskiy oftal’mologicheskiy zhurnal. 2016;9(3):12–17 (In Russ.)] DOI: 10.21516/2072-00762016-9-3-12-17

14. Breivik H., Borchgrevink P.C., Allen S.M., Rosseland L.A., Romundstad L., Hals E.K., Kvarstein G., Stubhaug A. Assessment of pain. Br J Anaesth. 2008 Jul;101(1):17–24. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aen103