4.6 Article

Safety and efficacy of the use of navigated retinal laser as a method of laser retinopexy in the treatment of symptomatic retinal tears

期刊

EYE
卷 35, 期 4, 页码 1256-1260

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-020-1050-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that the use of navigated retinal laser for laser retinopexy treatment of retinal tears was safe and effective in the majority of cases, with only a few requiring a second session. There were no cases of retinal detachment or other complications observed with the use of this laser system.
Purpose To investigate the safety and efficacy of the use of navigated retinal laser as a delivery method of laser retinopexy in the treatment of symptomatic retinal tears. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study of 69 patients presenting to a district general hospital in the United Kingdom with a diagnosis of symptomatic retinal tear who underwent retinopexy using a navigated retinal laser (Navilas 577s). Patients were followed up at two weeks or later to assess the efficacy and safety of the use of navigated retinal laser for retinopexy treatment. Results In total, 72 retinal tears in 69 patients were identified in our cohort. Of these cases, 70 (97.2%) retinal tears were treated with retinopexy using a navigated laser with a median treatment time 200 seconds. Two retinal tears could not be imaged on the navigated laser system and so underwent cryopexy. In 67/70 (95.7%) of retinal tears, one session of laser treatment using the navigated laser system was sufficient for primary management. The remaining three tears required a second session. No retinal tears treated with navigated laser treatment progressed to retinal detachment. There were no other complications seen with the use of this laser. Conclusions The use of navigated retinal laser as a method of laser retinopexy for the treatment of retinal tears shows comparable safety and efficacy with other studies using traditional retinal laser systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据