Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 5, 2025

10:24
Regenerative Therapy by Suprachoroidal Cell Autograft in Dry Age-related Macular Degeneration: Preliminary In Vivo Report
Published on: February 12, 2018
10.6K
Subthreshold Pan-Retinal Photocoagulation Using Endpoint Management Algorithm for Severe Nonproliferative Diabetic
Kunbei Lai1, Hongkun Zhao1, Lijun Zhou1
1State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Ophthalmic Research
|October 14, 2020
Summary
Subthreshold pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) with endpoint management (EPM) is as effective as conventional PRP for severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR). This approach offers a comparable safety profile and may preserve visual field function.
Area of Science:
- Ophthalmology
- Diabetic Retinopathy Treatment
- Retinal Laser Therapy
Background:
- Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of vision loss in diabetic patients.
- Severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) requires timely intervention to prevent progression to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR).
- Conventional threshold pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) is a standard treatment but can cause visual field deficits.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the efficacy and safety of subthreshold PRP using an endpoint management (EPM) algorithm versus conventional threshold PASCAL PRP for severe NPDR.
- To evaluate the risk of progression to PDR and changes in visual acuity (VA), central foveal thickness (CFT), and visual field (VF) parameters.
Main Methods:
- A prospective, single-center, paired randomized controlled trial involving 28 participants with bilateral severe NPDR.
- One eye received subthreshold EPM PRP, while the fellow eye received threshold PASCAL PRP.
- Outcomes assessed included 1-year risk of PDR progression, changes in logMAR VA, CFT, and VF parameters.
Main Results:
- Both subthreshold EPM PRP and threshold PASCAL PRP showed similar 1-year risks of PDR progression (17.86% vs. 14.29%).
- No statistically significant differences were observed in VA or CFT between the two groups.
- Threshold PASCAL PRP led to significant visual field loss, whereas subthreshold EPM PRP showed no obvious visual field damage.
Conclusions:
- Subthreshold EPM PRP is noninferior to conventional threshold PASCAL PRP for treating severe NPDR over 12 months.
- Subthreshold EPM PRP demonstrates a potentially better safety profile regarding visual field preservation.
- Subthreshold EPM PRP represents a viable alternative treatment for patients with severe NPDR.

