Journal francais d'ophtalmologie · 2026
[Tolerance of povidone-iodine in patients treated with intravitreal injection, about 619 patients].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Frapart F, Malerba C, Elbany S, Chirpaz N, Gilli C, Rocher A, Matagrin B, Pirot F, Fenniri I, Chiquet C, Dot C
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To analyze the perioperative impact of antiseptic protocols in patients receiving intravitreal injections.
METHODS: A tolerance questionnaire using visual analog pain scales was administered to patients who received consecutive intravitreal injections between December 1st and 31st, 2024, across two tertiary centers. Data collected included: pathology treated, number of previous injections, current topical and systemic medications, pain experienced during the procedure, post-injection discomfort, duration and nature of symptoms, and the desire to consider an alternative antiseptic method.
RESULTS: A total of 619 patients with fully completed questionnaires were included in the analysis. The mean age was 74.4 years (±11.62), with a male-to-female sex ratio of 0.48. The mean reported procedural pain was 4.2/10 (±2.7). Fifty-three percent of patients reported experiencing discomfort for at least 24h post-injection. A desire to change the antiseptic protocol was expressed in 81% of cases.
DISCUSSION: Our findings across two centers are consistent with those of the IVIS study: one-third of patients reported pain greater than 6/10 following intravitreal injection. Half of the patients experienced discomfort lasting more than 24hours. This poor tolerance of a frequently repeated procedure can lead to treatment discontinuation. The fact that 81% of patients expressed a desire to switch antiseptic protocols highlights the need for alternatives, such as chlorhexidine, which is already used in other countries.
CONCLUSION: The choice of antiseptic agent may become a limiting factor in intravitreal injection protocols due to poor tolerance in approximately one-third of patients. In such cases, proposing an equally effective alternative is justified. Chlorhexidine represents a viable option, though it is not currently utilized in France.
METHODS: A tolerance questionnaire using visual analog pain scales was administered to patients who received consecutive intravitreal injections between December 1st and 31st, 2024, across two tertiary centers. Data collected included: pathology treated, number of previous injections, current topical and systemic medications, pain experienced during the procedure, post-injection discomfort, duration and nature of symptoms, and the desire to consider an alternative antiseptic method.
RESULTS: A total of 619 patients with fully completed questionnaires were included in the analysis. The mean age was 74.4 years (±11.62), with a male-to-female sex ratio of 0.48. The mean reported procedural pain was 4.2/10 (±2.7). Fifty-three percent of patients reported experiencing discomfort for at least 24h post-injection. A desire to change the antiseptic protocol was expressed in 81% of cases.
DISCUSSION: Our findings across two centers are consistent with those of the IVIS study: one-third of patients reported pain greater than 6/10 following intravitreal injection. Half of the patients experienced discomfort lasting more than 24hours. This poor tolerance of a frequently repeated procedure can lead to treatment discontinuation. The fact that 81% of patients expressed a desire to switch antiseptic protocols highlights the need for alternatives, such as chlorhexidine, which is already used in other countries.
CONCLUSION: The choice of antiseptic agent may become a limiting factor in intravitreal injection protocols due to poor tolerance in approximately one-third of patients. In such cases, proposing an equally effective alternative is justified. Chlorhexidine represents a viable option, though it is not currently utilized in France.