An interventional study of PASCAL laser and Conventional laser in Diabetic Retinopathy, sponsored by Kocatepe University. Completed. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2016-01-01.
Sponsored by Kocatepe University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
The aim of this study is to compare the severity of expressed pain scores in patients with PDR who underwent either PASCAL or conventional laser and to assess the association between patient characteristics and severity of pain.
Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is a severe complication of diabetes mellitus characterized by new vessel formation in the retina and optic disc. Tight glycemic control and laser treatment in the early phases of the disease may slow the progression of PDR. Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is a laser-based treatment modality that destroys the outer retina layers and thereby improves the oxygen supply of the inner retina. During the following years, sequential improvements took place, including introduction of yellow, green, and diode lasers with various advantages of each wavelength.
In 2006, a novel semi-automatic and multi-shot photocoagulator called as PASCAL (Pattern scan laser, Opti-Medica Corp., Santa Clara, California, USA) was introduced with a reduction in pulse duration of each laser spot from typical 100 ms down to 10-30 millisecond. Compared with the conventional laser, shorter pulses have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of damage to the adjacent retinal tissues.
Almost all patients experience pain during PRP. While some patients may tolerate the pain, the majority does not. One study reported that 64.1% of patients did not complete treatment due to pain and therefore had an increased risk of vision loss. To improve patient compliance, several anesthetic and analgesic techniques such as peribulbar anesthesia, oral anesthesia and topical eye drops have been used. The patient comfort, and thus compliance, may be improved by using the shorter exposure burns, avoiding red or infrared wavelengths with deeper penetration, and by decreasing overall treatment time.
The aim of the current study was to compare the severity of expressed pain scores in patients with PDR who underwent either PASCAL or conventional laser.
As a method of this study, both eyes were treated within the same session and while one eye was treated with PASCAL laser, the other was treated with conventional laser (ELLEX Integre, Adailade, Australia) with 30 minutes resting intervals. To avoid a bias about orientation or becoming accustomed to laser procedure, PASCAL laser was performed in the first eyes in half of the patients (14 patients) and conventional laser was performed in the first eyes in the other half of the patients randomly. While the spot size used to obtain a white-grayish spot on the retina was 200-400 µm in both PASCAL and conventional laser, the pulse duration was 100 ms with conventional laser and 30ms with PASCAL laser. In order to accurately and reliable compare the grade of pain between each procedures, the retinal areas and total number of spots were standardized. Similar numbers of laser spots were created by two laser systems in same retinal quadrants in both eyes. Ten minutes after the procedure ended the severity of pain was assessed using a verbal rating scale and a visual analog scale (VAS). In the verbal scale the patient rates the pain on a Likert scale verbally, e.g. "none", "mild pain", "moderate pain", "severe pain" or "very severe pain" in five grading system (0-4) and in the VAS they specify the severity of pain by indicating a position along a continuous line from 0 to 10. Using these scores, relationship between severity of pain and patient characteristics including history of prior PRP treatment (experience), gender and duration of diabetes mellitus were assessed. Patients were assigned either in the experienced or non-experienced groups depending on history of prior PRP.
778 studies on the registry are indexed under Diabetic Retinopathy; 142 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 30 is below the median of 80 across 481 interventional studies indexed under Diabetic Retinopathy.
Browse Diabetic Retinopathy studies →Kocatepe University is the lead sponsor of 7 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Patients undergone PASCAL laser photocoagulation
Device: PASCAL laser
Patients undergone conventional laser photocoagulation
Device: Conventional laser
A novel semi-automatic and multi-shot photocoagulator called as PASCAL (Pattern scan laser, Opti-Medica Corp., Santa Clara, California, USA) was introduced with a reduction in pulse duration of each laser spot from typical 100 ms down to 10-30 millisecond. Compared with the conventional laser, shorter pulses have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of damage to the adjacent retinal tissues. One eye was treated with PASCAL laser, the other was treated with conventional laser with 30 minutes resting intervals. To avoid a bias about orientation or becoming accustomed to laser procedure, PASCAL laser was performed in the first eyes in half of the patients (14 patients) randomly.
Maintaining of good glycemic regulation and performing panretinal laser photocoagulation (PRP) with conventional laser device (ELLEX Integre, Adailade, Australia) when it is indicated are evidence based effective methods for proliferative diabetic retinopathy.One eye was treated with conventional laser, the other was treated with PASCAL laser with 30 minutes resting intervals. To avoid a bias about orientation or becoming accustomed to laser procedure, conventional laser was performed in the first eyes in half of the patients (14 patients) randomly.
Verbal Score for pain
Verbal Score for pain was measured as units on the scale 10 minutes after the completion the laser procedure.
Time frame: 3 months
Visual analog score for pain
Visual Analog Score for pain was measured as units on the scale 10 minutes after the completion the laser procedure.
Time frame: 3 months
No study locations are listed for this record.
The record gives a start of May 2014, a primary completion of Jul 2014 and a completion of Jun 2015. It does not say whether these dates are actual or estimated.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in Dec 2015. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Kocatepe University