Translational vision science & technology · 2020
Intravitreal Injection with a Conjunctival Injection Device: A Single-Center Experience.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Soh Yu Qiang, Chiam Nathalie Pei Yu, Tsai Andrew Shih Hsiang, Cheung Gemmy Chui Ming, Wong Tien Yin, Yeo Ian Yew San, Wong Edmund Yick Mun, Tan Anna Cheng Sim
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical performance of the intravitreal injection assistant device (InVitria) compared with the conventional freehand technique for delivering intravitreal injections.
METHODS: Seventy patients were randomized to receive intravitreal injections via the conventional freehand technique while 70 received injections using the InVitria. Half of all procedures in each group were performed by junior surgeons, while the rest were performed by senior surgeons.
RESULTS: Mean injections times were 90.0 ± 23.3 seconds and 64.9 ± 26.8 seconds for conventional versus InVitria (P < 0.001). Mean injection times with the conventional technique were 85.5 ± 23.0 seconds vs. 94.2 ± 23.0 seconds for senior versus junior surgeons (P = 0.120). Mean injection times with the InVitria were 56.1 ± 26.1 seconds vs. 66.3 ± 26.9 seconds (P = 0.211) for senior versus junior surgeons. There were no significant differences in pain scores regardless of technique (conventional versus In Vitria: 2.03 ± 1.73 vs. 2.13 ± 2.20, P = 0.770).
CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, the InVitria is a comparable alternative to the conventional freehand technique of delivering intravitreal injections, with the potential for faster injection times and without compromising on patient comfort.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: The study provides evidence to suggest that the InVitria may be deployed effectively in clinical practice.
METHODS: Seventy patients were randomized to receive intravitreal injections via the conventional freehand technique while 70 received injections using the InVitria. Half of all procedures in each group were performed by junior surgeons, while the rest were performed by senior surgeons.
RESULTS: Mean injections times were 90.0 ± 23.3 seconds and 64.9 ± 26.8 seconds for conventional versus InVitria (P < 0.001). Mean injection times with the conventional technique were 85.5 ± 23.0 seconds vs. 94.2 ± 23.0 seconds for senior versus junior surgeons (P = 0.120). Mean injection times with the InVitria were 56.1 ± 26.1 seconds vs. 66.3 ± 26.9 seconds (P = 0.211) for senior versus junior surgeons. There were no significant differences in pain scores regardless of technique (conventional versus In Vitria: 2.03 ± 1.73 vs. 2.13 ± 2.20, P = 0.770).
CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, the InVitria is a comparable alternative to the conventional freehand technique of delivering intravitreal injections, with the potential for faster injection times and without compromising on patient comfort.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: The study provides evidence to suggest that the InVitria may be deployed effectively in clinical practice.