4.7 Review

Subthreshold Micropulse Laser for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Review

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12010274

关键词

subthreshold laser; micropulse laser; diabetic macular edema; combined treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a common cause of visual impairment and subthreshold micropulse laser treatment shows promise as an alternative therapy. Micropulse laser selectively targets the retinal pigment epithelium, offering a safe and effective treatment for mild and moderate macular edemas. This paper reviews the safety and application of micropulse lasers in comparison to other standard treatments for DME.
Diabetic macular edema (DME) is one of the main causes of visual impairment in patients of working age. DME occurs in 4% of patients at all stages of diabetic retinopathy. Using a subthreshold micropulse laser is an alternative or adjuvant treatment of DME. Micropulse technology demonstrates a high safety profile by selectively targeting the retinal pigment epithelium. There are no standardized protocols for micropulse treatment, however, a 577 nm laser application over the entire macula using a 200 mu m retinal spot, 200 ms pulse duration, 400 mW power, and 5% duty cycle is a cost-effective, noninvasive, and safe therapy in mild and moderate macular edemas with retinal thickness below 400 mu m. Micropulse lasers, as an addition to the current gold-standard treatment for DME, i.e., anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF), stabilize the anatomic and functional retinal parameters 3 months after the procedure and reduce the number of required injections per year. This paper discusses the published literature on the safety and application of subthreshold micropulse lasers in DME and compares them with intravitreal anti-VEGF or steroid therapies and conventional grid laser photocoagulation. Only English peer-reviewed articles reporting research within the years 2010-2022 were included.

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

4.7
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