throbber
Needle Size in Intravitreal Injections-Preliminary Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial | IOVS | ARVO... Page 1 of 2
`
`FREE
`
`ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract
`
`| March 2012
`
`Needle Size in Intravitreal Injections-
`
`Preliminary Results of a Randomized
`
`Clinical Trial
`
`Christiane I. Falkner-Radler; Barbara Wimpissinger; Carl Glittenberg; Alexandra Graf; Susanne Binder
`
`+ Author Affiliations & Notes
`
`Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science March 2012, Vol.53, 884. doi:
`
`Abstract
`
`Purpose:
`
`To evaluate the influence of the needle size used for intravitreal (IVT) injections on patients‘ pain
`
`experience in a randomized, double-armed, single-blinded, single-centered clinical trial.
`
`Methods:
`
`Patients included were randomized to have an IVT injection performed with a 27-gauge needle
`
`(group 1) or with a 30-gauge needle (group 2). The topical anesthesia before the injection was
`
`standardized (0.5% tetracaine drops). Immediately after the injection, patients were asked to
`
`grade their pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Wong-Baker FACES scale. The main
`
`outcome measure was the pain score assessment. Co-factors analyzed were patients'
`
`demographics (age and gender), clinical characteristics (right eye, left eye, number of previous
`
`IVT injections) and the surgeon. In addition, scaled surgeon's questionnaires to asses the IVT
`
`injection procedure were evaluated. For statistical analysis a regression model was used.
`
`_Resu|ts:
`
`LJp to now, the data of 126 patients (group1: 59 patients; group 2: 67 patients) were analyzed.
`
`Mean VAS pain scores were 2.26 i 1.35 for group 1 and 2.27 i 1.66 for group 2. Mean Wong-
`
`Baker pain scores were 1.95 i 1.51 for group 1 and 2.22 i 1.65 for group 2. There was no
`
`significant difference in the VAS pain scores (p> 0.86) and in the Wong Baker pain scores (p>
`
`0.36) between both treatment groups. Gender and the number of previous IVT injections
`
`significantly influenced the VAS pain scores (p< 0.05), whereas age had a significant influence on
`
`https://iovs.arvoj ournalsorg/article.aspx?articleid=23 50271
`
`9/27/2018
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1058.001
`
`

`

`Needle Size in IntraVitreal Injections-Preliminary Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial | IOVS | ARVO... Page 2 of 2
`
`the Wong Baker pain scores (p< 0.20). Female patients, patients with a history of previous IVT
`
`injections and older patients had higher pain scores. The surgeon’s questionnaire showed an
`
`overall preference towards the use of a 30-gauge needle for IVT injections.
`
`_Conc|usions:
`
`The use ofa 30-gauge needle for IVT injections showed no significant effect in pain relief
`
`compared to the use ofa 27-gauge needle. However, a 30-gauge needle was preferred by all
`
`surgeons.
`
`_Clinical Trial:
`
`_http://www.c|inicaltrials.gov NCT01477996
`
`Keywords: retina - clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: treatment/prevention
`
`assessment/controlled clinical trials - injection
`
`© 2012, The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc., all rights reserved.
`Permission to republish any abstract or part ofan abstract in any orm must be obtained in
`writing from the ARVO Office prior to publication.
`
`https://iovs.arvoj ournalsorg/article.aspx?articleid=23 50271
`
`9/27/2018
`
`Regeneron Exhibit 1058.002
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket