Objectives: Assess the efficacy, safety and benefits of treating vitreous floaters in symptomatic patients with Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis determined by a vision-related quality of life questionnaire, pre- and posto-interventional. Materials and methods: Participants diagnosed with symptomatic vitreous floaters at Split University Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology from April to May 2019, were consecutively admitted in this prospective study. We included adult patients with clinical symptoms of vitreous floaters or posterior vitreous detachment. Those with an obscured anterior segment of the eye, blurring of natural/artificial lens, endophthalmitis, adherence of opacities to the iris, uncontrolled intraocular pressure or degenerative pathologies were excluded from this study. The study participants were examined by a pre- and post-interventional questionnaire which were completed after week one and month one after Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis treatment. Intraocular pressure (IOP) and best spectacle- corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were assessed before and after intervention. Results: 10 eyes of 10 patients with symptomatic vitreous floater diagnosed with posterior vitreous detachment were treated with a single-session Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis. Statistical significance was observed in decrease of symptomatology disturbance after week 1 (P=0.031) and a median relief of the initial symptoms was 45%. Out of 10 participants, all but one was followed up 1 month after. Majority of the participants experienced decrease of the disease symptoms, and none of them suffered from post interventional difficulties. 2 participants complained on the adverse effects, one for choroid haemorrhage and one for retinal hit. BCVA was improved in 40% of the patients with a decrease in IOP in 30 %. Conclusion: Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis is an effective and compatible treatment which improves vision related quality of life. Although results showed no statistical significance, the coherent study showed 90% and 100% decrease in symptoms affirmed by participants subjectively after 1 week and 1 month, respectively. In the two participants with adverse effects the findings were not significant to affect vision or structure of the eye. In our post-interventional questionnaire which compared difficulties after both one week and one month, 100% of the patients did not perceive any difficulties with vision or ocular function. Further studies have to be done in this field of ophthalmology involving randomized control trials, larger sample groups, comparability with other treatment options and a comprehensive follow-up time are needed.