A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Subthreshold yellow micropulse laser for treatment of diabetic macular edema: Comparison between fixed and variable treatment regimen. | LitMetric

Purpose: To compare the efficacy between fixed and variable treatment regimens of subthreshold yellow micropulse laser for the treatment of diabetic macular edema.

Methods: This is a retrospective, comparative, 12-month study of 39 eyes: 24 eyes received fixed treatment regimen of subthreshold micropulse laser treatment and 15 eyes underwent variable treatment regimen of subthreshold micropulse laser, all eyes were followed up for 12 months. Subthreshold micropulse laser was performed with the following parameters: 100 μm spot size on slit lamp, 5% duty cycle of 0.2 s, and 250 mW power. To choose the power of the variable treatment regimen of subthreshold micropulse laser group, continuous laser power was titrated to a barely visible burn and then switched to MicroPulse mode, multiplying the test burn power by 4 and using a 5% duty cycle of 0.2 s. Main outcomes included changes in central macular thickness and best-corrected visual acuity.

Results: At baseline, the mean LogMAR best-corrected visual acuity was 0.297 ± 0.431 in the variable treatment regimen of subthreshold micropulse laser group and 0.228 ± 0.341 in the fixed treatment regimen of subthreshold micropulse laser group. At the end of follow-up, the mean LogMAR best-corrected visual acuity was 0.289 ± 0.473 (p = 0.785) and 0.245 ± 0.376 (p = 0.480) in the variable and fixed treatment regimens of subthreshold micropulse laser groups, respectively. Similarly, central macular thickness decreased in both groups after treatment; at baseline, the mean central macular thickness was 371.06 ± 37.8 in the variable treatment regimen of subthreshold micropulse laser group and improved to 325.60 ± 110.0 μm (p = 0.025) at the end of the follow-ups, while it was 342.30 ± 35.4 in the fixed treatment regimen of subthreshold micropulse laser group and improved to 308.51 ± 67.5 (p = 0.037).

Conclusion: Both treatment regimens are effective for the treatment of mild center-involving diabetic macular edema: fixed treatment appears more suitable minimizing treatment time and reducing the possible errors due to wrong titration in the switch from continuous to micropulse mode.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1120672120915169DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

micropulse laser
44
subthreshold micropulse
36
treatment regimen
32
regimen subthreshold
28
variable treatment
24
fixed treatment
20
laser group
20
treatment
18
micropulse
13
laser
12

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!