Dataset Information

YAG Laser Vitreolysis vs Sham YAG Vitreolysis for Symptomatic Vitreous Floaters: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Vitreous floaters are common and can worsen visual quality. YAG vitreolysis is an untested treatment for floaters.

Objective

To evaluate YAG laser vitreolysis vs sham vitreolysis for symptomatic Weiss ring floaters from posterior vitreous detachment.

Design, setting, and participants

This single-center, masked, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial was performed from March 25, 2015, to August 3, 2016, in 52 eyes of 52 patients (36 cases and 16 controls) treated at a private ophthalmology practice.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned to YAG laser vitreolysis or sham YAG (control).

Main outcomes and measures

Primary 6-month outcomes were subjective change measured from 0% to 100% using a 10-point visual disturbance score, a 5-level qualitative scale, and National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire 25 (NEI VFQ-25). Secondary outcomes included objective change assessed by masked grading of color fundus photography and Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study best-corrected visual acuity.

Results

Fifty-two patients (52 eyes; 17 men and 35 women; 51 white and 1 Asian) with symptomatic Weiss rings were enrolled in the study (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [8.0] years for the YAG laser group and 61.1 [6.6] years for the sham group). The YAG laser group reported greater symptomatic improvement (54%) than controls (9%) (difference, 45%; 95% CI, 25%-64%; P < .001). In the YAG laser group, the 10-point visual disturbance score improved by 3.2 vs 0.1 in the sham group (difference, -3.0; 95% CI, -4.3 to -1.7; P < .001). A total of 19 patients (53%) in the YAG laser group reported significantly or completely improved symptoms vs 0 individuals in the sham group (difference, 53%; 95% CI, 36%-69%, P < .001). Compared with sham, NEI VFQ-25 revealed improved general vision (difference, 16.3; 95% CI, 0.9-31.7; P = .04), peripheral vision (difference, 11.6; 95% CI, 0.8-22.4; P = .04), role difficulties (difference, 17.3; 95% CI, 8.0-26.6; P < .001), and dependency (difference, 5.6; 95% CI, 0.5-10.8; P = .03) among the YAG laser group. Best-corrected visual acuity changed by -0.2 letters in the YAG laser group and by -0.6 letters in sham group (difference, 0.4; 95% CI, -6.5 to 5.3; P = .94). No differences in adverse events between groups were identified.

Conclusions and relevance

YAG laser vitreolysis subjectively improved Weiss ring-related symptoms and objectively improved Weiss ring appearance. Greater confidence in these outcomes may result from larger confirmatory studies of longer duration.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov NCT02897583.

SUBMITTER: Shah CP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5710539 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVitreous floaters are a common ocular condition that affects individuals of all ages. Although vitreous floaters are typically benign, they can significantly impair visual acuity and quality of life. Laser vitreolysis, which uses an Nd: YAG laser to vaporize collagenous vitreous opacities, is increasingly being used as a treatment option. However, there is currently a lack of evidence regarding its efficacy and the appropriate timing of its application. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early intervention with YAG laser vitreolysis in treating symptomatic vitreous floaters.MethodsThe present study is a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial. A total of 70 participants with symptomatic floaters for 1 month were prospectively recruited. These participants will be randomly assigned to two groups, with 35 individuals in each group: the early treatment group and the delayed treatment group. Participants assigned to the early treatment group will undergo YAG laser vitreolysis immediately, followed by a sham laser treatment 3 months later. On the other hand, participants assigned to the delayed treatment group will receive a sham laser treatment and then undergo YAG laser vitreolysis 3 months later. The follow-up time points will be 1, 3, 6, and 12 months from randomization. Primary outcomes will be participants' self-reported improvement in visual disturbance on a scale of 1 to 10 and their scores on the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire 25 (NEI VFQ-25). Secondary outcomes will be an objective evaluation of the effectiveness of the treatment in reducing vitreous floaters through OCT and fundus photography and tracking any adverse events related to the eyes or overall health.DiscussionThis clinical trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of YAG laser vitreolysis in treating symptomatic vitreous floaters and assess the safety of performing early intervention with YAG laser vitreolysis.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05800353 . Registered on 10 March 2023.

Project description:BackgroundThe vitreous is the clear jelly of the eye and contains fine strands of proteins. Throughout life the composition of this vitreous changes, which causes the protein strands in it to bundle together and scatter light before it reaches the retina. Individuals perceive the shadows cast by these protein bundles as 'floaters'. Some people are so bothered by floaters that treatment is required to control their symptoms. Two major interventions for floaters include Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis and vitrectomy. Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis involves using laser energy to fragment the vitreous opacities via a non-invasive approach. Vitrectomy involves the surgical replacement of the patient's vitreous (including the symptomatic vitreous floaters) with an inert and translucent balanced salt solution, through small openings in the pars plana.ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness and safety of Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis to pars plana vitrectomy for symptomatic vitreous floaters.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 17 January 2017), Embase Ovid (1947 to 17 January 2017), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 17 January 2017), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 17 January 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 17 January 2017 and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 17 January 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We also searched conference proceedings to identify additional studies.Selection criteriaWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis to pars plana vitrectomy for treatment of symptomatic floaters.Data collection and analysisWe planned to use methods recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcome we planned to measure was change in vision-related quality of life from baseline to 12 months, as determined by a vision-related quality of life questionnaire. The secondary outcomes we planned to measure were best corrected logMAR or Snellen visual acuity at 12 months for the treated eye(s) and costs. Adverse outcomes we planned to record were the occurrence of sight-threatening complications by 12 months (asymptomatic retinal tears, symptomatic retinal tears, retinal detachment, cataract formation, and endophthalmitis).Main resultsNo studies met the inclusion criteria of this review.Authors' conclusionsThere are currently no RCTs that compare Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis with pars plana vitrectomy for the treatment of symptomatic floaters. Properly designed RCTs are needed to evaluate the treatment outcomes from the interventions described. We recommend future studies randomise participants to either a Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis group or a vitrectomy group, with participants in each group assigned to either receive treatment or a sham intervention. Future studies should follow participants at six months and 12 months after the intervention. Also they should use best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) using an Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart read at 4 metres, vision-related quality of life (VRQOL), and adverse outcomes as the outcome measures of the trial.

Project description:ImportancePostmenopausal vaginal symptoms are common and frequently detrimental to a woman's quality of life. Fractional carbon dioxide vaginal laser is increasingly offered as a treatment, but the efficacy remains unproven.ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of fractional carbon dioxide laser for treatment of vaginal symptoms associated with menopause.Design, setting, and participantsA double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial with 12-month follow-up was undertaken at a single tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia. Enrollment commenced on September 19, 2016, with final follow-up on June 30, 2020. Participants were postmenopausal women with vaginal symptoms substantive enough to seek medical treatment. Of 232 participants approached, 85 were randomized.InterventionsThree treatments using a fractional microablative carbon dioxide laser system performed 4 to 8 weeks apart, with 43 women randomized to the laser group and 42 to the sham group.Main outcomes and measuresThe co-primary outcomes were symptom severity assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS; range, 0-100; 0 indicates no symptoms and 100 indicates the most severe symptoms) and the Vulvovaginal Symptom Questionnaire (VSQ; range, 0-20; 0 indicates no symptoms and 20 indicates the most severe symptoms) at 12 months. The minimal clinically important difference was specified as a 50% decrease in both VAS and VSQ severity scores. There were 5 prespecified secondary outcomes, including quality of life (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate better quality of life), the Vaginal Health Index Score (range, 5-25; higher scores indicate better health), and vaginal histology (premenopausal or postmenopausal status).ResultsOf 85 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [8] years), 78 (91.7%) completed the 12-month follow-up. From baseline to 12 months, there was no significant difference between the carbon dioxide laser group and the sham group in change in symptom severity (VAS score for overall vaginal symptoms: -17.2 vs -26.6; difference, 9.4 [95% CI, -28.6 to 47.5]; VAS score for the most severe symptom: -24.5 vs -20.4; difference -4.1 [95% CI, -32.5 to 24.3]; VSQ score: -3.1 vs -1.6; difference, -1.5 [95% CI, -5.9 to 3.0]). There were no significant differences between the laser and sham group in the mean quality of life score (6.3 vs 1.4; difference, 4.8 [95% CI, -3.9 to 13.5]) and Vaginal Health Index Score (0.9 vs 1.3; difference, -0.4 [95% CI, -4.3 to 3.6]) or in histological comparisons between laser and sham treatment groups. There were 16 adverse events in the laser group and 17 in the sham group, including vaginal pain/discomfort (44% vs 68%), spotting, discharge, and lower urinary tract symptoms. No severe adverse events were reported in either group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong women with postmenopausal vaginal symptoms, treatment with fractional carbon dioxide laser vs sham treatment did not significantly improve vaginal symptoms after 12 months.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616001403426.