If it is clinically equivalent to ALT, why is SLT a better option?

If it is clinically equivalent to ALT, why is SLT a better option?

For open-angle glaucoma on patients maximally tolerated medical therapy, who are some of the most severe glaucoma patients, SLT and AL are equally effective in reducing and maintaining low intraocular pressure (IOP). However, the Tango does not cause a burn in the trabecular meshwork (TM) whereas ALT does. The burn produced by ALT is causing patients to re-evaluate how laser treatment fits into the glaucoma management. Various studies have proven that SLT does not cause collateral damage to surrounding tissues in the TM- this means that SLT can be repeated whereas ALT cannot. In summary:

• clinically safe and effective means of lowering IOP
• no collateral damage to endothelial cells due to selective targeting
• responses to 180 degrees SLT are very similar to 360 degrees ALT
• side effects of 180 degrees SLT are less than those of 360 degrees ALT
• the higher the pre-operative IOP, the better the IOP drop