局部使用非甾体抗炎药减轻玻璃体内注射后疼痛的比较研究。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
European Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-10 DOI:10.1177/11206721231201176
Chen Shtayer, A Lily Okrent Smolar, Mohamad Elmalak, Lena Abayev, Andrzej Grzybowski, Elad Moisseiev
{"title":"局部使用非甾体抗炎药减轻玻璃体内注射后疼痛的比较研究。","authors":"Chen Shtayer, A Lily Okrent Smolar, Mohamad Elmalak, Lena Abayev, Andrzej Grzybowski, Elad Moisseiev","doi":"10.1177/11206721231201176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>PurposeTo compare the efficacy of two different topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) drops with versus without conservatives after intravitreal injections (IVIs).DesignProspective, randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blinded comparative study.Participants and methodA total of 308 eyes of 252 patients receiving an IVI of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) were randomly assigned to receive either a single drop of nepafenac 0.1%, preservative-free diclofenac 0.1%, or artificial tears (control group) immediately after IVI. Primary outcome measure was pain scores immediately, six hours and twenty-four hours post- injection.Results166 patients received one topical drop of NSAIDS, of which 90 in the diclofenac group and 76 in the nepafenac group. Additional 86 patients were included in the control group. Mean reported pain score was significantly lower at six hours after IVI in the preservative-free diclofenac group (17.1 ± 23.0) than in the nepafenac group (26.2 ± 31.9) and the control group (27.5 ± 29.2) (p = 0.03). At twenty-four hours post-injection there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. Patients reported less pain compared to previous IVIs and none referred to urgent health care, but these findings were not statistically significant.ConclusionsThe use of topical preservative-free NSAIDs may be superior to preservative- containing NSAIDs in pain relief after IVIs and may be considered as part of the treatment protocol of this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":12000,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":"1703-1709"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Post-Intravitreal injection pain reduction using topical NSAIDS: A comparative study.\",\"authors\":\"Chen Shtayer, A Lily Okrent Smolar, Mohamad Elmalak, Lena Abayev, Andrzej Grzybowski, Elad Moisseiev\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11206721231201176\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>PurposeTo compare the efficacy of two different topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) drops with versus without conservatives after intravitreal injections (IVIs).DesignProspective, randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blinded comparative study.Participants and methodA total of 308 eyes of 252 patients receiving an IVI of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) were randomly assigned to receive either a single drop of nepafenac 0.1%, preservative-free diclofenac 0.1%, or artificial tears (control group) immediately after IVI. Primary outcome measure was pain scores immediately, six hours and twenty-four hours post- injection.Results166 patients received one topical drop of NSAIDS, of which 90 in the diclofenac group and 76 in the nepafenac group. Additional 86 patients were included in the control group. Mean reported pain score was significantly lower at six hours after IVI in the preservative-free diclofenac group (17.1 ± 23.0) than in the nepafenac group (26.2 ± 31.9) and the control group (27.5 ± 29.2) (p = 0.03). At twenty-four hours post-injection there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. Patients reported less pain compared to previous IVIs and none referred to urgent health care, but these findings were not statistically significant.ConclusionsThe use of topical preservative-free NSAIDs may be superior to preservative- containing NSAIDs in pain relief after IVIs and may be considered as part of the treatment protocol of this population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1703-1709\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721231201176\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721231201176","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较两种不同外用非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)滴剂在玻璃体内注射(IVIs)后的疗效。前瞻性、随机、安慰剂对照、单盲比较研究。参与者和方法:252名接受抗血管内皮生长因子(anti-VEGF)静脉注射的患者共308只眼睛被随机分配到静脉注射后立即接受一滴0.1%的尼帕芬酸、0.1%的无防腐剂双氯芬酸或人工泪液(对照组)。主要观察指标是注射后即刻、6小时和24小时的疼痛评分。结果166例患者口服1滴非甾体抗炎药,其中双氯芬酸组90例,尼帕芬酸组76例。对照组86例。无防腐剂双氯芬酸组IVI后6小时的平均报告疼痛评分(17.1±23.0)明显低于尼帕芬酸组(26.2±31.9)和对照组(27.5±29.2)(p = 0.03)。注射后24小时,两组间差异无统计学意义。与以前的静脉注射相比,患者报告的疼痛减轻了,没有人提到紧急医疗保健,但这些发现没有统计学意义。结论局部使用不含防腐剂的非甾体抗炎药在静脉注射后疼痛缓解方面可能优于含防腐剂的非甾体抗炎药,可作为该人群治疗方案的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Post-Intravitreal injection pain reduction using topical NSAIDS: A comparative study.

PurposeTo compare the efficacy of two different topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) drops with versus without conservatives after intravitreal injections (IVIs).DesignProspective, randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blinded comparative study.Participants and methodA total of 308 eyes of 252 patients receiving an IVI of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) were randomly assigned to receive either a single drop of nepafenac 0.1%, preservative-free diclofenac 0.1%, or artificial tears (control group) immediately after IVI. Primary outcome measure was pain scores immediately, six hours and twenty-four hours post- injection.Results166 patients received one topical drop of NSAIDS, of which 90 in the diclofenac group and 76 in the nepafenac group. Additional 86 patients were included in the control group. Mean reported pain score was significantly lower at six hours after IVI in the preservative-free diclofenac group (17.1 ± 23.0) than in the nepafenac group (26.2 ± 31.9) and the control group (27.5 ± 29.2) (p = 0.03). At twenty-four hours post-injection there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. Patients reported less pain compared to previous IVIs and none referred to urgent health care, but these findings were not statistically significant.ConclusionsThe use of topical preservative-free NSAIDs may be superior to preservative- containing NSAIDs in pain relief after IVIs and may be considered as part of the treatment protocol of this population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
372
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Ophthalmology was founded in 1991 and is issued in print bi-monthly. It publishes only peer-reviewed original research reporting clinical observations and laboratory investigations with clinical relevance focusing on new diagnostic and surgical techniques, instrument and therapy updates, results of clinical trials and research findings.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信