Premium
Is there still a role of macular laser treatment in branch retinal vein occlusion in the era of intravitreal injections?
Author(s) -
Stenner Anne Møller,
Frederiksen Katrine Hartmund,
Grauslund Jakob
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
acta ophthalmologica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.534
H-Index - 87
eISSN - 1755-3768
pISSN - 1755-375X
DOI - 10.1111/aos.14261
Subject(s) - medicine , branch retinal vein occlusion , triamcinolone acetonide , ophthalmology , visual acuity , retinal , clinical trial , randomized controlled trial , dexamethasone , laser treatment , surgery , laser , macular edema , physics , optics
We aimed to evaluate whether macular laser still has a role in the treatment of macular oedema ( MO ) caused by branch retinal vein occlusion ( BRVO ) and provide an overview of recent studies on commonly available treatment options. A literature search was last conducted in PubMed on 26 February 2019, limited to human randomized controlled trials published in English since 2008. Seventeen articles addressing 13 trials were included in this assessment. In trials evaluating intravitreal corticosteroid and macular laser, triamcinolone was non‐inferior to laser in regard to visual acuity ( VA ) and central retinal thickness ( CRT ) outcomes. Combination treatment of dexamethasone and laser resulted in better VA and lower CRT after 6 months. In trials evaluating vascular endothelial growth factor ( VEGF ) inhibitors versus macular laser treatment, or sham and rescue laser, better VA and CRT of VEGF inhibition treatment was consistently reported. Results of combination treatment versus VEGF inhibition monotherapy were inconsistent, with four of six studies reporting comparable outcomes and injection burden. Study comparison was affected by considerable differences in study design and inadequate reporting of laser protocol and rescue laser. Studies evaluating angiostatic treatment as monotherapy largely report the use of rescue laser, indicating that some patients would benefit from supplemental laser treatment even in the era of intravitreal therapy. Thus, we suggest further studies on optimal design of combination therapy prioritizing longer follow‐up time to sufficiently evaluate the delayed effect of laser.