4.1 Article

Shortening ocular pain duration following intravitreal injections

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 6, Pages 1008-1012

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.5301/ejo.5000147

Keywords

Age-related macular degeneration; Artificial tears; Intravitreal injection; Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; Ocular pain

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. To determine ocular pain duration after routine in-office intravitreal injection and to determine whether topical eyedrops are beneficial in increasing patient comfort. METHODS. Forty injection-naive patients receiving routine intravitreal injections of bevacizumab for age-related macular degeneration were randomized into 3 groups: group 1 (control, no drops), group 2 (generic artificial tears), and group 3 (ketorolac tromethamine 0.4% eyedrops). Those who received topical medications were given a Visual Analog Pain score survey and asked to record their pain on a scale from 0 (no distress) to 10 (unbearable distress) daily until a score of 0 was achieved, at which point they were instructed to discontinue use of their given drops. Self-reported pain scores were assessed. RESULTS. Pain after routine intravitreal injection lasts on average between 3 and 7 days. Patients receiving topical ketorolac eyedrops reported the fewest average number of pain days (2.25 +/- 1.22) vs patients receiving artificial tears (3.54 +/- 1.13) or those who received no postprocedure eyedrops (5.13 +/- 1.25); p<0.05. At most, patients receiving ketorolac eyedrops reported 3 days of recordable pain. Those who received artificial tears reported at most 5 days of recordable pain, and patients who did not receive any postprocedure eyedrops reported at most 7 days of recordable pain. CONCLUSIONS. Pain after intravitreal injection is generally mild, may be reduced by postinjection topical ketorolac eyedrops, and lasts less than 1 week.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available