Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is the leading cause for blindness in working-age adults. The current gold standard treatment for PDR is panretinal photocoagulation (PRP). In current clinical practice, both single-session and multiple-session PRP approaches are widely accepted and utilized. The purpose of this study is to compare the safety and effectiveness of single-session and multiple-session PRP.
Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is a well-known complication for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and it is the leading cause for blindness in working-age adults. The current gold standard treatment for PDR, established more than four decades ago by the Diabetic Retinopathy Study (DRS), is panretinal photocoagulation (PRP). The treatment goal is to halt the progression of PDR by destroying parts of the peripheral retina in a pattern fashion and hence preserving the visually important central macular region. The tissue destruction reduces the area of ischemia and reduces the production of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which drives the formation of neovascular proliferations. In the management of PDR, panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) stands as a cornerstone treatment. In current clinical practice, both single-session and multiple-session PRP approaches are widely accepted and utilized. The choice between these approaches often depends on the practitioner's preference, patient characteristics, and specific clinical circumstances. Although both single-session and multiple-session PRP are employed in practice, there's an ongoing debate regarding their comparative safety and effectiveness. Older studies suggest a heightened risk of diabetic macular edema (DME) with single-session PRP, while newer research, particularly those involving milder laser techniques, indicates that the risk might be similar regardless of the number of sessions. This inconsistency in findings underscores the need for further research and the investigators aim to shed light over this with this prospective, controlled and randomized interventional study.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
40
Administration of panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) treatment with navigated laser using Navilas in one comprehensive session, typically delivered in a single clinical visit.
Administration of panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) treatment with navigated laser using Navilas over two separate visits with at least one week apart.
Ögonmottagning Mölndal/SU
Mölndal, Sweden
RECRUITINGCentral subfield retinal thickness (CRT)
Mean change from baseline in CRT
Time frame: Baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment
Vessel Perfusion Density (VPD)
Mean change from baseline in VPD
Time frame: Baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment
Vessel Length Density (VLD)
Mean change from baseline in VLD
Time frame: Baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment
Foveal Avascular Zone (FAZ)
Mean change from baseline in FAZ
Time frame: Baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment
Lesion size
Mean change from baseline in lesion size
Time frame: Baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment
Macular volume
Mean change from baseline in macular volume
Time frame: Baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment
Venular saturation
Mean change from baseline in venular saturation
Time frame: Baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment
Arteriolar saturation
Mean change from baseline in arteriolar saturation
Time frame: Baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment
Retinal diameter
Mean change from baseline in retinal diameter
Time frame: Baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment
Venular diameter
Mean change from baseline in venular diameter
Time frame: Baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment
Retinal function
Mean change from baseline in retinal function using full-field electroretinogram (ERG)
Time frame: Baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment
Diabetic macular edema (DME)
Incidence of diabetic macular edema (DME)
Time frame: Baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment
Subjective experience of pain after treatment
Study patients' subjective experience of pain after treatment using visual analog scale (VAS)
Time frame: Baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment
Subjective overall experience of the treatment
Study patients' subjective overall experience of the treatment using verbal scale (VS)
Time frame: Baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment
Cost-effectiveness
We intend to conduct a thorough cost-effectiveness analysis, comparing the single-session approach with the traditional multiple-session treatments. This analysis will factor in direct medical costs, including the expenses related to the laser equipment, healthcare professionals' time, and the required clinical facilities. We will also consider indirect costs such as patient travel expenses and time taken off work.
Time frame: Baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.