Diode laser cyclophotocoagulation versus cyclocryotherapy in the treatment of XXXX .

@entity33679 @entity1 @entity227 @entity726 @entity260 @entity282
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of diode laser cyclophotocoagulation ( @entity33679 ) and cyclocryotherapy (CCT) in the treatment of @entity726 and compare the @entity260 and discomfort rates. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study, 40 eyes of 40 @entity1 with @entity726 were randomly assigned in 2 groups of 20 eyes each to receive either @entity33679 or CCT. @entity1 underwent follow-up examinations on the first 3 days and then 1 week and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after initial treatment. Complications and discomfort after treatment using a @entity227 analogue scale were recorded. RESULTS: In the @entity33679 group, the mean intraocular pressure (IOP) decreased (p<0.05) from 44.3    16.4 mmHg preoperatively to 24.1    7.6 mmHg, 22.8    5.6 mmHg, and 22.5    5.1 mmHg 3, 6, and 12 months posttreatment, respectively. Regarding the CCT group, the mean IOP was reduced (p<0.05) from 46.5    10.4 mmHg to 26.6    12.2 mmHg, 21.2    7.7 mmHg, and 20.6    5 mmHg at the same time intervals. In the @entity33679 group, the mean IOP reduction was strongly correlated with the number of laser effects (r = 0.65; p<0.01), but 35% needed retreatments. The mean @entity282 was 5.6    2.9 ( @entity33679 ) vs 5.7    2.3 (CCT) (p = 0.91). No severe complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Both @entity33679 and CCT proved to be safe and effective IOP-lowering methods in @entity1 with @entity726 . Diode laser cyclophotocoagulation should be considered as the primary treatment option in @entity726 using an individual treatment dosage.
