» Articles » PMID: 34135566

Comparison of Two Different Intravitreal Injection Techniques

Overview
Journal Clin Ophthalmol
Publisher Dove Medical Press
Specialty Ophthalmology
Date 2021 Jun 17
PMID 34135566
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To compare the effectiveness, procedure time and safety outcomes of two different intravitreal injections (IVI) techniques.

Methods: This was a prospective, single-center, randomized clinical trial of 200 adult eyes receiving intravitreal medications for various indications. Eyes were assigned (1:1) to undergo IVI using either an intravitreal injection guide (IIG) (n= 100) or conventional dual blade speculum plus surgical caliper (DBS) (n=100). All IVI were administered using a 30-gauge needle placed 4 mm posterior to the inferior limbus. The main outcome measures were rate of successful IVI administration, procedure time (seconds) as measured by a stopwatch from application to removal of IIG or DBS, patient preference for IVI technique and adverse events.

Results: The two groups were similar in terms of mean age (P=0.398), laterality (P=0.671), indication for treatment (P=0.175) and medication type (P=0.489). All IVI procedures were successfully completed in both groups. The mean procedure time was shorter using the IIG (9.94 ± 2.87 seconds) versus DBS (21.85 ± 7.25 seconds) technique (P ≤ 0.01). The incidence of post-injection subconjunctival hemorrhage was higher when the DBS was applied (OR = 2.35, 95% CI = 1.22-4.53). Patients with previous history of IVI preferred the IIG over the DBS. No other injection-related adverse events were observed in both groups.

Conclusion: DBS and IIG techniques are similarly effective and safe for the administration of intravitreal medications. The IIG appears to significantly reduce procedure time, be associated with a lower incidence of subconjunctival hemorrhage and engender better patient acceptance.

Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04455399).

Citing Articles

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

Yepez J, Murati F, Petitto M, Kozak I, Fernando Arevalo J Clin Ophthalmol. 2025; 19:535-541.

PMID: 39967785 PMC: 11834656. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S494755.

References
1.
Shrier E . Cotton-tip applicator lid retraction technique for controlled intravitreal injection. Retina. 2014; 34(6):1244-6. DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000219. View

2.
Prenner J, Halperin L, Rycroft C, Hogue S, Williams Liu Z, Seibert R . Disease Burden in the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Findings From a Time-and-Motion Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015; 160(4):725-31.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.06.023. View

3.
Ratnarajan G, Nath R, Appaswamy S, Watson S . Intravitreal injections using a novel conjunctival mould: a comparison with a conventional technique. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012; 97(4):395-7. DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-302155. View

4.
Michelotti M, Abugreen S, Kelly S, Morarji J, Myerscough D, Boddie T . Transformational change: nurses substituting for ophthalmologists for intravitreal injections - a quality-improvement report. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014; 8:755-61. PMC: 3998867. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S59982. View

5.
Tailor R, Beasley R, Yang Y, Narendran N . Evaluation of patients' experiences at different stages of the intravitreal injection procedure - what can be improved?. Clin Ophthalmol. 2011; 5:1499-502. PMC: 3206121. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S24358. View