Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2018 Mar;125(3):345-351.
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.09.015. Epub 2017 Oct 31.

Comparison of New Visual Disturbances after Superior versus Nasal/Temporal Laser Peripheral Iridotomy: A Prospective Randomized Trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison of New Visual Disturbances after Superior versus Nasal/Temporal Laser Peripheral Iridotomy: A Prospective Randomized Trial

Kavitha Srinivasan et al. Ophthalmology. 2018 Mar.

Abstract

Purpose: To determine whether laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) location affects postoperative dysphotopsia symptoms.

Design: Multicenter, randomized, prospective, single-masked trial.

Participants: Five hundred fifty-nine South Indian patients 30 years of age or older diagnosed as primary angle-closure suspects (PACSs) or with primary angle closure (PAC) or primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) in both eyes.

Methods: Patients were randomized to either bilateral superior or bilateral nasal/temporal LPI. Occurrence of new visual disturbances was evaluated before and 2 weeks after LPI using a questionnaire based on the 7-item dysphotopsia symptoms described by Spaeth et al.

Main outcome measures: New-onset dysphotopsia symptoms.

Results: Superior LPI (n = 285) and nasal/temporal LPI (n = 274) patients were matched for age (P = 0.6), gender (P = 0.7), and distribution of PACS versus PAC or PACG (P = 0.7). Similar initial laser energy settings were used in both groups (P = 0.3), although superior LPIs required more shots (P = 0.006) and greater total energy (P < 0.001) than nasal/temporal LPIs. No significant differences in postoperative anterior chamber reaction (P = 0.7) or LPI area (P = 0.9) were noted between the 2 groups. No group differences were noted regarding the proportion of patients demonstrating 1 or more dysphotopsia symptoms before LPI (15.8% for superior vs. 13.9% for nasal/temporal; P = 0.1) or any individual dysphotopsia symptom (P > 0.2 for all). After LPI, 8.9% of all patients reported 1 or more new symptoms, the most common consisting of linear dysphotopsias, glare, and blurring in 2.7%, 4.3%, and 4.3% of patients, respectively. Patients undergoing superior LPI were not more likely to describe the new onset of 1 or more dysphotopsia symptoms as compared with patients undergoing nasal/temporal LPI (8.4% vs. 9.5%; P = 0.7), nor did the frequency of any new individual symptoms differ by group (P ≥ 0.3 for all). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, neither LPI location nor LPI area nor total laser energy predicted higher odds of new postoperative dysphotopsias (P > 0.1 for all).

Conclusions: Laser peripheral iridotomy likely is safe with respect to visual dysphotopsias regardless of location, LPI size, and amount of laser energy used.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03187821.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources