Retinal laser photocoagulation was first described 45 years ago
1 and remains the standard of care for many retinal diseases. Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy involves the purposeful destruction of a significant fraction of the photoreceptors, as well as other more superficial retinal layers.
2 Several mechanisms have been suggested to underlie the efficacy of PRP and other laser treatments, including improved retinal oxygenation, reduction in metabolic activity, inhibition of angiogenic stimulators, increased production of angioinhibitory factors, and oxidative stress.
3 4 5 6 Side effects of PRP treatment include permanent retinal scarring, resulting in scotomas and decreased peripheral, color, and night vision.
7 It remains largely unknown how these putative benefits of PRP or its many deleterious side effects
7 relate to parameters of laser treatment and subsequent retinal healing. Several investigators have presented evidence that light PRP (minimum-intensity photocoagulation)
8 9 or even subvisible treatment (micropulse photocoagulation)
10 11 has an efficacy equivalent to that of conventional PRP in causing regression of high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy and is associated with fewer complications and fewer treatment sessions. In a recent report, at 12 months, light PRP was equivalent to classic PRP in reduction or elimination of diabetic macular edema, visual improvement, change in contrast sensitivity, and decreased foveal retinal thickness on OCT.
8 Both of these approaches claim to offer the therapeutic benefit of conventional therapy without many of its side effects.
12 However, many physicians remain skeptical about these claims, and a prospective randomized clinical trial is needed to provide convincing evidence one way or the other.