September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Comparison of New Visual Disturbances after Superior vs Nasal/Temporal Laser Peripheral Iridotomy: a prospective randomized trial
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Nazlee Zebardast
    Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Sabyasachi S Sengupta
    Aravind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry, India
  • Mohideen Abdul Kader
    Aravind Eye Hospital, Tirunelveli , India
  • Krishnamurthy Palaniswamy
    Aravind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry, India
  • Ganesh Raman
    Aravind Eye Hospital Coimbatore , Coimbatore , India
  • Sharmila Reddy
    Aravind Eye Hospital Madurai, Madurai, India
  • Kavitha Srinivasan
    Aravind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry, India
  • Pradeep Y Ramulu
    Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Rengaraj Venkatesh
    Aravind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry, India
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Nazlee Zebardast, None; Sabyasachi Sengupta, None; Mohideen Kader, None; Krishnamurthy Palaniswamy, None; Ganesh Raman, None; Sharmila Reddy, None; Kavitha Srinivasan, None; Pradeep Ramulu, None; Rengaraj Venkatesh, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  Research to Prevent Blindness and Morton F. Goldberg Director's Discovery Fund
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 5615. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Nazlee Zebardast, Sabyasachi S Sengupta, Mohideen Abdul Kader, Krishnamurthy Palaniswamy, Ganesh Raman, Sharmila Reddy, Kavitha Srinivasan, Pradeep Y Ramulu, Rengaraj Venkatesh; Comparison of New Visual Disturbances after Superior vs Nasal/Temporal Laser Peripheral Iridotomy: a prospective randomized trial. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):5615.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose : To determine whether laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) location affects post-operative dysphotopsia symptoms

Methods : Design: Multicenter randomized, prospective, single masked trial
Participants: 539 South Indian subjects aged ≥ 30 years with primary angle closure suspect (PACS) or primary angle closure/ primary angle closure glaucoma (PAC/PACG)
Methods: Subjects were randomized to either bilateral superior or bilateral nasal/temporal LPI. Occurrence of new visual disturbances was evaluated before and 2 weeks after LPI using a questionnaire based on the 7-item Spaeth dysphotopsia symptoms. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine predictors of one or more new post-operative dysphotopsia symptoms.

Results : Subjects randomized to superior LPI (N=273) and nasal/temporal LPIs (N=266) were matched with respect to ocular and demographic features (p>0.5 for age, gender and PAC/PACG diagnosis). Similar initial laser energy settings were used in both groups (p=0.5), though superior LPIs required greater number of shots (p=0.002) and greater total energy (p<0.001) than nasal/temporal LPIs. There were no significant differences in post-operative anterior chamber (AC) reaction or LPI area between the two groups (p>0.5 for all). Overall, 8.7% of all subjects reported presence of one or more new dysphotopsia symptoms post-LPI, with the most common new symptoms consisting of linear dysphotopsias, glare, and blurring in 2.8%, 4.1% and 4.2% of patients, respectively. Patients receiving superior LPI were not more likely to describe the new onset of one or more dysphotophopsia symptoms as compared to subjects undergoing nasal/temporal LPI (8.4% vs. 9.0%, p=0.8), nor did the frequency of any individual symptoms differ by group (p>0.2 for all). Multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated that PACG diagnosis (OR=2.66, 95% CI 1.20-5.88) predicted higher odds of new post-operative dysphotopsias while LPI location, LPI area, and total laser energy did not (p>0.1 for all).

Conclusions : LPI location was not associated with statistically significant differences in post-operative dysphotopsia symptoms. PACG diagnosis, but not LPI location, LPI area or total energy, was associated with occurrence of new visual disturbances post-LPI.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.


This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.