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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
玻璃体内无柱塞注射装置(IPLID):一种创新的玻璃体内注射装置。
目的:分享新型玻璃体内无柱塞注射器(IPLID)在各种视网膜疾病患者中的早期应用经验。患者和方法:本研究纳入300只眼(300名患者),既往至少接受过1次常规玻璃体内注射,用于各种适应症,如糖尿病黄斑水肿、静脉闭塞、活动脉络膜新生血管膜、湿性AMD和新生血管性青光眼。排除了可能影响疼痛耐受性的全身性疾病患者。所有患者均行玻璃体内注射IPLID。手术后,患者被要求将疼痛程度与常规注射进行比较。手术后,外科医生立即对该装置的各个方面进行了简单的调查,包括手术的安全性。还收集了有关该程序持续时间的数据。结果:研究对象为男性210人,女性90人。平均注射时间为17.51分钟(15 ~ 20分钟)。注射iplid后,155例(51.7%)患者报告疼痛减轻,128例(42.7)患者报告疼痛与先前注射相似,5.7%(17)患者报告疼痛比先前注射更严重。医师调查显示,13.33%(40例)的IPLID注射剂与常规注射剂无差异,86.67%(260例)的IPLID注射剂操作舒适,91.67%(275例)的IPLID注射剂大小不存在问题。在所有病例中,外科医生对IPLID药物的递送感到满意,并且在IPLID注射期间或之后没有出现不良事件。结论:IPLID是一种用于玻璃体内注射的简单装置,可能提供更大的人体工程学优势,并解决了卫生保健人员由于长期重复操作而导致的肌肉骨骼疾病问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Overview of Intracameral Drug Delivery Systems in Glaucoma. Comparison of Seasonal Variation in Myopia Progression: Defocus Incorporated Multiple Segment Spectacle Lenses in Combination with 0.01% Atropine vs Orthokeratology. Reversal of Pharmacologic Mydriasis in Pediatric Subjects with Ryzumvi (0.75% Phentolamine Ophthalmic Solution): A Post-Hoc Pooled Analysis from Three Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Trials. To Evaluate the Agreement and Repeatability of the Eyerobo VS Portable Autorefractor Cycloplegic Refraction in Children and Adolescents. Visual Outcomes Following Cataract Surgery and Implantation of a Small-Aperture Intraocular Lens in Post-Refractive Surgery Patients.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1