METHODS: This was a prospective, randomised, observer-blinded study. Two keloids on the same site were randomly assigned to receive either daily topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% cream under occlusion with silicone dressing (Scar 1) or monthly IL triamcinolone injection (Scar 2). Efficacy was assessed using patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) at 4-weekly intervals up to 12 weeks. Dimension of keloid and adverse effects were also assessed.

RESULTS: A total of 34 scars from 17 patients completed the study. There was significant improvement of POSAS at 12 weeks compared to baseline within each treatment group. However, there was no statistically significant difference in POSAS at 12 weeks between the two treatments. Keloid dimensions showed a similar trend of improvement by week 12 with either treatment (p = 0.002 in Scar 1, p = 0.005 for Scar 2). However, there was no significant difference between the treatment. In the IL triamcinolone group, all patients reported pain and 70.6% observed necrotic skin reaction. There was a significantly higher rate of adverse effects such as erythema (41.2 vs. 17.6%), hypopigmentation (35.3 vs. 23.5%), telangiectasia (41.2 vs. 17.6%) and skin atrophy (23.5 vs. 5.9%) documented in the IL triamcinolone group when compared to clobetasol propionate 0.05% cream under occlusion with silicone dressing.

METHODS: This comparative pilot study consists of 40 diabetic patients with diabetic macular oedema. The patients were randomized into two groups using envelope technique sampling procedure. Treatment for diabetic macular oedema was based on the printed envelope technique selected for every patient. Twenty patients were assigned for IVTA group (one injection of IVTA) and another 20 patients for LASER group (one laser session). Main outcome measures were mean BCVA and mean MEI at three months post treatment. The MEI was quantified using Heidelberg Retinal Tomography II.

RESULTS: The mean difference for BCVA at baseline [IVTA: 0.935 (0.223), LASER: 0.795 (0.315)] and at three months post treatment [IVTA: 0.405 (0.224), LASER: 0.525 (0.289)] between IVTA and LASER group was not statistically significant (p = 0.113 and p = 0.151 respectively). The mean difference for MEI at baseline [IVTA: 2.539 (0.914), LASER: 2.139 (0.577)] and at three months post treatment [IVTA: 1.753 (0.614), LASER: 1.711 (0.472)] between IVTA and LASER group was also not statistically significant (p = 0.106 and p = 0.811 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS: IVTA demonstrates good outcome comparable to laser photocoagulation as a primary treatment for diabetic macular oedema at three months post treatment.