4.6 Article

Which quadrant is less painful for intravitreal injection? A prospective study

期刊

EYE
卷 33, 期 2, 页码 304-312

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-018-0208-y

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the relationship between injection site and pain severity following intravitreal injection of bevacizumab (IVB). Design: Prospective, randomized, four-armed, clinical trial. Methods: The present study was a prospective, randomized, four-armed clinical trial, which included 1004 eyes from 1004 patients. Patients receiving IVB were randomly assigned into four groups: superotemporal (ST); superonasal (SN); inferotemporal (IT); and inferonasal (IN) injections. The visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess pain. Primary study variables were the relationship between pain severity and injection site, number of previous injections, age, sex, and indication for injection. Secondary variables included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) changes 1 month post IVB. Results: Overall mean pain score was 2.86 +/- 2.2. Indications for injection were diabetic macular edema (84.1%), neovascular age-related macular degeneration (7.7%), and macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (8.2%). The mean VAS scores in the SN, IN, ST, and IT groups were 1.5 +/- 1.7, 3 +/- 2.3, 4 +/- 2, and 3 +/- 2.1, respectively. Pain severity was significantly correlated with injection site (p < 0.001) and sex (p < 0.001); females showed higher pain scores. A negative correlation existed between pain score and number of previous injections (p = 0.03). Pain severity was not associated with age (p = 0.659), lens status (p = 0.478), vitreous reflux (p = 0.648), or indication for injection (p = 0.390). No significant complications were observed. Conclusions: ST quadrant was the most painful and SN quadrant was the least painful sites for IVB. Pain severity score was significantly associated with injection site, number of injections, and sex.

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