Assessment of Vitreous Structure and Visual Function after Neodymium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet Laser Vitreolysis.
Adult
Aged
Contrast Sensitivity
/ physiology
Eye Diseases
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Humans
Lasers, Solid-State
/ therapeutic use
Male
Middle Aged
Ophthalmoscopy
Patient Satisfaction
/ statistics & numerical data
Retrospective Studies
Sickness Impact Profile
Surveys and Questionnaires
Ultrasonography
Visual Acuity
/ physiology
Vitrectomy
Vitreous Body
/ diagnostic imaging
Journal
Ophthalmology
ISSN: 1549-4713
Titre abrégé: Ophthalmology
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7802443
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2019
11 2019
Historique:
received:
25
09
2018
revised:
09
06
2019
accepted:
14
06
2019
pubmed:
1
9
2019
medline:
14
3
2020
entrez:
1
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser treatment is performed on vitreous floaters, but studies of structural and functional effects with objective outcome measures are lacking. This study evaluated Nd:YAG laser effects by comparing participants with vitreous floaters who previously underwent laser treatment with untreated control participants and healthy persons without vitreous floaters using quantitative ultrasonography to evaluate vitreous structure and by measuring visual acuity and contrast sensitivity function to assess vision. Retrospective, comparative study. One eye was enrolled for each of 132 participants: 35 control participants without vitreous floaters, 59 participants with untreated vitreous floaters, and 38 participants with vitreous floaters previously Nd:YAG-treated. Of these, 25 were dissatisfied and sought vitrectomy; 13 were satisfied with observation. The 39-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-39) to assess participant visual well-being, quantitative ultrasonography (QUS) to measure vitreous echodensity, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and contrast sensitivity function (CSF) to evaluate vision. Results of NEI-VFQ-39, QUS, BCVA, and CSF. Compared with control participants without vitreous floaters, participants with untreated vitreous floaters showed worse NEI-VFQ-39 results, 57% greater vitreous echodensity, and significant (130%) CSF degradation (P < 0.001 for each). Compared with untreated eyes with vitreous floaters, Nd:YAG-treated eyes had 23% less vitreous echodensity (P < 0.001), but no differences in NEI-VFQ-39 (P = 0.51), BCVA (P = 0.42), and CSF (P = 0.17) results. Of 38 participants with vitreous floaters who previously were treated with Nd:YAG, 25 were dissatisfied and seeking vitrectomy, whereas 13 were satisfied with observation. Participants seeking vitrectomy showed 24% greater vitreous echodensity (P = 0.018) and 52% worse CSF (P = 0.006). Multivariate linear regression models confirmed these findings. As a group, participants previously treated with Nd:YAG laser for bothersome vitreous floaters showed less dense vitreous, but similar visual function as untreated control participants with vitreous floaters. Because some treated eyes showed less dense vitreous and better visual function than those of untreated control participants, a prospective randomized study of Nd:YAG laser treatment of vitreous is warranted, using uniform laser treatment parameters and objective quantitative outcome measures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31471088
pii: S0161-6420(18)32553-3
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.06.021
pmc: PMC6810832
mid: NIHMS1532600
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1517-1526Subventions
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : P30 EY019007
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Eye (Lond). 2016 May;30(5):645-55
pubmed: 26939559
J Refract Surg. 2015 Mar;31(3):196-201
pubmed: 25751837
Ophthalmology. 2016 Jul;123(7):1500-10
pubmed: 27129901
J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999 Apr;25(4):575-81
pubmed: 10198867
Cell Biochem Biophys. 2014 Mar;68(2):267-74
pubmed: 23797611
Int Ophthalmol. 2011 Oct;31(5):409-12
pubmed: 22002418
Br J Ophthalmol. 2017 Jun;101(6):709-711
pubmed: 27574177
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2015 May;26(3):173-6
pubmed: 25784107
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018 Apr 1;136(4):447-448
pubmed: 29522071
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2016 Nov 4;26(6):e149-e151
pubmed: 27646329
Am J Ophthalmol. 2016 Dec;172:7-12
pubmed: 27633841
Case Rep Ophthalmol. 2017 May 29;8(2):321-325
pubmed: 28626418
Eye (Lond). 2002 Jan;16(1):21-6
pubmed: 11913884
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007 Jul;245(7):965-71
pubmed: 17219125
J Fr Ophtalmol. 2011 Oct;34(8):589-91
pubmed: 21507513
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013 May;251(5):1373-82
pubmed: 23250478
Exp Eye Res. 2001 Dec;73(6):859-66
pubmed: 11846516
Br J Ophthalmol. 1993 Aug;77(8):485-8
pubmed: 8025044
Int J Ophthalmol. 2013 Jun 18;6(3):402-5
pubmed: 23826541
Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2005;103:473-94
pubmed: 17057814
Optom Vis Sci. 2004 Jul;81(7):516-24
pubmed: 15252351
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017 Sep 1;135(9):918-923
pubmed: 28727887
Eye (Lond). 2003 Jan;17(1):113; author reply 113
pubmed: 12579192
J Fr Ophtalmol. 1998 Aug-Sep;21(7):495-500
pubmed: 9805684
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018 May;256(5):919-925
pubmed: 29536170
Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2013 Jul-Aug;44(4):415-8
pubmed: 23883538
Am J Ophthalmol. 2015 Jan;159(1):138-43
pubmed: 25308785
Taiwan J Ophthalmol. 2016 Oct-Dec;6(4):195-198
pubmed: 29018741
Ophthalmology. 2004 Jan;111(1):85-96
pubmed: 14711718
Retina. 2009 Jul-Aug;29(7):871-4
pubmed: 19584647
Am J Ophthalmol. 2011 Jul;152(1):3-4.e1
pubmed: 21703388
Spat Vis. 1997;11(1):85-9
pubmed: 9304755
Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2016 Aug;114:WP1
pubmed: 28008209
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017 Sep 1;135(9):973-976
pubmed: 28750116
Optom Vis Sci. 1996 Jan;73(1):49-53
pubmed: 8867682
Surv Ophthalmol. 2016 Mar-Apr;61(2):211-27
pubmed: 26679984
Vestn Oftalmol. 2018;134(1):56-62
pubmed: 29543200
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018 Apr 1;136(4):448
pubmed: 29522069
Acta Ophthalmol. 2017 Nov;95(7):690-696
pubmed: 28000983
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 12;12:CD003169
pubmed: 27943250
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017 Sep 1;135(9):924-925
pubmed: 28727863
Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018 Nov;46(8):956-958
pubmed: 29573082
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 01;6:CD011676
pubmed: 28570745
Retina. 2015 Jun;35(6):1240-6
pubmed: 25650709
Ophthalmol Retina. 2018 Sep;2(9):881-887
pubmed: 31047219
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015 Jan 22;56(3):1611-7
pubmed: 25613948
Retina. 2014 Jun;34(6):1062-8
pubmed: 24296397
Am J Ophthalmol. 2011 Jul;152(1):60-65.e1
pubmed: 21570045