Intravitreal Plungerless Injector Device (IPLID): An Innovative Intravitreal Injector Device.

Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) Pub Date : 2025-02-14 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OPTH.S494755
Juan B Yepez, Felipe A Murati, Michele Petitto, Igor Kozak, J Fernando Arevalo
{"title":"Intravitreal Plungerless Injector Device (IPLID): An Innovative Intravitreal Injector Device.","authors":"Juan B Yepez, Felipe A Murati, Michele Petitto, Igor Kozak, J Fernando Arevalo","doi":"10.2147/OPTH.S494755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To share our early experience with the novel intravitreal plungerless injector device (IPLID) for application in patients with various retinal diseases.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This study enrolled 300 eyes (300 patients) who had undergone at least 1 previous conventional intravitreal injection, for various indications, such as diabetic macular edema, venous occlusions, active choroidal neovascular membrane, wet AMD and neovascular glaucoma. Patients with systemic conditions that could affect pain tolerance were excluded. All patients underwent intravitreal injection with the IPLID. After the procedure the patients were asked to grade pain compared to conventional injections. Immediately after the procedure, surgeons completed a simple survey on various aspects of the device, including safety of the procedure. Data were also collected on the duration of the procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study sample was comprised of 210 males and 90 females. The mean duration of the injection was 17.51 minutes (range, 15 minutes to 20 minutes). Post-IPLID injection, 155 (51.7%) patients reported less pain compared to previous injections, 128 (42.7) patients reported pain similar to previous injections and 5.7% (17) of patients reported more pain than previous procedures. The physician survey indicated that there was no difference between IPLID and conventional technique in 13.33% (40) of injections, and 86.67% (260) of the injections were comfortable to perform with the IPLID and size was not an issue in 91.67% (275) of injections. In all cases, the surgeons were comfortable with the delivery of medication with IPLID and there were no adverse events during or after IPLID injection.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The IPLID is a simple device for delivering intravitreal injection and may offer greater ergonomic advantages and that address the issue of musculoskeletal disorders in healthcare personnel due to repetitive procedures over time.</p>","PeriodicalId":93945,"journal":{"name":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","volume":"19 ","pages":"535-541"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11834656/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S494755","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To share our early experience with the novel intravitreal plungerless injector device (IPLID) for application in patients with various retinal diseases.

Patients and methods: This study enrolled 300 eyes (300 patients) who had undergone at least 1 previous conventional intravitreal injection, for various indications, such as diabetic macular edema, venous occlusions, active choroidal neovascular membrane, wet AMD and neovascular glaucoma. Patients with systemic conditions that could affect pain tolerance were excluded. All patients underwent intravitreal injection with the IPLID. After the procedure the patients were asked to grade pain compared to conventional injections. Immediately after the procedure, surgeons completed a simple survey on various aspects of the device, including safety of the procedure. Data were also collected on the duration of the procedure.

Results: The study sample was comprised of 210 males and 90 females. The mean duration of the injection was 17.51 minutes (range, 15 minutes to 20 minutes). Post-IPLID injection, 155 (51.7%) patients reported less pain compared to previous injections, 128 (42.7) patients reported pain similar to previous injections and 5.7% (17) of patients reported more pain than previous procedures. The physician survey indicated that there was no difference between IPLID and conventional technique in 13.33% (40) of injections, and 86.67% (260) of the injections were comfortable to perform with the IPLID and size was not an issue in 91.67% (275) of injections. In all cases, the surgeons were comfortable with the delivery of medication with IPLID and there were no adverse events during or after IPLID injection.

Conclusion: The IPLID is a simple device for delivering intravitreal injection and may offer greater ergonomic advantages and that address the issue of musculoskeletal disorders in healthcare personnel due to repetitive procedures over time.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信