Cargando…

Comparison of Two Different Intravitreal Injection Techniques

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness, procedure time and safety outcomes of two different intravitreal injections (IVI) techniques. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-center, randomized clinical trial of 200 adult eyes receiving intravitreal medications for various indications. Eyes were ass...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Uy, Harvey S, Artiaga, Jose Carlo M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8197588/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34135566
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S309501
_version_ 1783706952757411840
author Uy, Harvey S
Artiaga, Jose Carlo M
author_facet Uy, Harvey S
Artiaga, Jose Carlo M
author_sort Uy, Harvey S
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness, procedure time and safety outcomes of two different intravitreal injections (IVI) techniques. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-center, randomized clinical trial of 200 adult eyes receiving intravitreal medications for various indications. Eyes were assigned (1:1) to undergo IVI using either an intravitreal injection guide (IIG) (n= 100) or conventional dual blade speculum plus surgical caliper (DBS) (n=100). All IVI were administered using a 30-gauge needle placed 4 mm posterior to the inferior limbus. The main outcome measures were rate of successful IVI administration, procedure time (seconds) as measured by a stopwatch from application to removal of IIG or DBS, patient preference for IVI technique and adverse events. RESULTS: The two groups were similar in terms of mean age (P=0.398), laterality (P=0.671), indication for treatment (P=0.175) and medication type (P=0.489). All IVI procedures were successfully completed in both groups. The mean procedure time was shorter using the IIG (9.94 ± 2.87 seconds) versus DBS (21.85 ± 7.25 seconds) technique (P ≤ 0.01). The incidence of post-injection subconjunctival hemorrhage was higher when the DBS was applied (OR = 2.35, 95% CI = 1.22–4.53). Patients with previous history of IVI preferred the IIG over the DBS. No other injection-related adverse events were observed in both groups. CONCLUSION: DBS and IIG techniques are similarly effective and safe for the administration of intravitreal medications. The IIG appears to significantly reduce procedure time, be associated with a lower incidence of subconjunctival hemorrhage and engender better patient acceptance. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04455399).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8197588
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81975882021-06-15 Comparison of Two Different Intravitreal Injection Techniques Uy, Harvey S Artiaga, Jose Carlo M Clin Ophthalmol Clinical Trial Report OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness, procedure time and safety outcomes of two different intravitreal injections (IVI) techniques. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-center, randomized clinical trial of 200 adult eyes receiving intravitreal medications for various indications. Eyes were assigned (1:1) to undergo IVI using either an intravitreal injection guide (IIG) (n= 100) or conventional dual blade speculum plus surgical caliper (DBS) (n=100). All IVI were administered using a 30-gauge needle placed 4 mm posterior to the inferior limbus. The main outcome measures were rate of successful IVI administration, procedure time (seconds) as measured by a stopwatch from application to removal of IIG or DBS, patient preference for IVI technique and adverse events. RESULTS: The two groups were similar in terms of mean age (P=0.398), laterality (P=0.671), indication for treatment (P=0.175) and medication type (P=0.489). All IVI procedures were successfully completed in both groups. The mean procedure time was shorter using the IIG (9.94 ± 2.87 seconds) versus DBS (21.85 ± 7.25 seconds) technique (P ≤ 0.01). The incidence of post-injection subconjunctival hemorrhage was higher when the DBS was applied (OR = 2.35, 95% CI = 1.22–4.53). Patients with previous history of IVI preferred the IIG over the DBS. No other injection-related adverse events were observed in both groups. CONCLUSION: DBS and IIG techniques are similarly effective and safe for the administration of intravitreal medications. The IIG appears to significantly reduce procedure time, be associated with a lower incidence of subconjunctival hemorrhage and engender better patient acceptance. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04455399). Dove 2021-06-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8197588/ /pubmed/34135566 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S309501 Text en © 2021 Uy and Artiaga. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Clinical Trial Report
Uy, Harvey S
Artiaga, Jose Carlo M
Comparison of Two Different Intravitreal Injection Techniques
title Comparison of Two Different Intravitreal Injection Techniques
title_full Comparison of Two Different Intravitreal Injection Techniques
title_fullStr Comparison of Two Different Intravitreal Injection Techniques
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Two Different Intravitreal Injection Techniques
title_short Comparison of Two Different Intravitreal Injection Techniques
title_sort comparison of two different intravitreal injection techniques
topic Clinical Trial Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8197588/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34135566
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S309501
work_keys_str_mv AT uyharveys comparisonoftwodifferentintravitrealinjectiontechniques
AT artiagajosecarlom comparisonoftwodifferentintravitrealinjectiontechniques