I am ambivalent about it. At our institution, it has become the primary laser, and I sometimes find myself wishing for the argon. My two largest issues are that 1) it doesn't cut through hemorrhage well and 2) the difference in energy and duration used is sufficiently large between a YAG and argon that I find myself wondering whether I have treated to the standards outlined by various landmark studies. Lesser complaints include 3)distortion of the grid pattern at the edge of the condensing lens that can result in an unequal uptake (for example, only 6 of 9 spots taking). 4) An almost obligatory treating of vessels when doing a PRP with a larger grid pattern. 5) The circular patterns are interesting, but I rarely use them since retinopexies rarely follow a perfect shape. 6)I find the thumb joystick(for the aiming beam) location awkward(though useable). 7) The LIO cord is pretty short.
On the upside, it is a very ergonomically designed system(thumbstick aside), and the touch screen is nice. Overall, the patients do seem more comfortable. I can't comment on postop inflammation, since I typically do divided sessions with either laser type.
My take: If you primarily do PRP at the slit lamp, it will probably save you some time. If you are proficient with the LIO, it probably won't. Personally, I am undecided on which laser I would purchase.
