Pain in the treatment of vitreoretinal diseases

Treatment of vitreoretinal diseases comprises a range of options that has increased in the past several years, allowing more individuals to benefit from new therapeutic approaches. The use of lasers in the retina, new surgical techniques, and intravitreal drug administration constitute common treatment options. These retinal and vitreal procedures have both benefits and drawbacks. Among the drawbacks is discomfort associated with the procedure, constituting a relevant issue because it can compromise adherence to treatment. We reviewed aspects of pain associated with vitreoretinal procedures and the available options for its control. With regard to vitreoretinal procedures, laser photocoagulation is associated with a higher pain score compared with vitrectomy and intravitreal injection using traditional anesthesia methods, suggesting that laser photocoagulation still needs to be improved with regard to comfort during the procedure. In some cases, a combination of analgesic options may be the best choice for pain-sensitive individuals. Individual differences and the specific condition that is treated should be considered when deciding the best treatment option.(AU)

Pain in the treatment of vitreoretinal diseases

Treatment of vitreoretinal diseases comprises a range of options that has increased in the past several years, allowing more individuals to benefit from new therapeutic approaches. The use of lasers in the retina, new surgical techniques, and intravitreal drug administration constitute common treatment options. These retinal and vitreal procedures have both benefits and drawbacks. Among the drawbacks is discomfort associated with the procedure, constituting a relevant issue because it can compromise adherence to treatment. We reviewed aspects of pain associated with vitreoretinal procedures and the available options for its control. With regard to vitreoretinal procedures, laser photocoagulation is associated with a higher pain score compared with vitrectomy and intravitreal injection using traditional anesthesia methods, suggesting that laser photocoagulation still needs to be improved with regard to comfort during the procedure. In some cases, a combination of analgesic options may be the best choice for pain-sensitive individuals. Individual differences and the specific condition that is treated should be considered when deciding the best treatment option.

Comparison of acetazolamide, brimonidine, and anterior chamber paracentesis for ocular hypertension control after initial intravitreal bevacizumab injection: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of oral acetazolamide (ACZ), anterior chamber paracentesis (ACP), or topical brimonidine tartrate (BT) to reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation after intravitreal bevacizumab injection (IVBI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 56 patients scheduled for IVBI (1.5 mg/0.06 mL) were randomly assigned to a pretreatment with ACZ (14 eyes), BT (14 eyes), as well as an immediately after ACP (14 eyes), or no treatment (control group-CG) (14 eyes). IOP was measured 90 minutes before injection (baseline), just before injection, and at 3, 10, 20, and 30 minutes after the procedure. RESULTS: IOP was increased at 3 minutes after injection in CG, 20.9±2.1 (mean±SE intraindividual change in mm Hg); BT, 15.5±2.3; ACZ, 13.7±1.7; but not in ACP, 0.3±1.2 (P<0.0001). At 30 minutes after injections, IOP difference to baseline was not significantly different in groups BT, 0.0±0.7; ACZ, -3.2±0.8; and ACP, -2.5±3.9, but was kept higher in the CG, 4.0±4.3 (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: ACP prevents IOP elevation after IVBI, whereas ACZ and BT caused a faster return to baseline than untreated nonglaucomatous eyes. Further studies with larger number of subjects, including glaucomatous patients, and the use of other topical glaucoma medications are warranted to establish a standard recommendation.