Erica Darian-Smith1, Allister R Howie2, Robin G Abell2, Nathan Kerr2, Penny L Allen2, Brendan J Vote2, Tze'Yo Toh2. 1. From the Launceston Clinical School (Darian-Smith, Howie), University of Tasmania, and the Tasmanian Eye Institute (Darian-Smith, Howie, Abell, Allen, Vote, Toh), Launceston, Tasmania, and the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital (Abell, Kerr), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: edar2754@gmail.com. 2. From the Launceston Clinical School (Darian-Smith, Howie), University of Tasmania, and the Tasmanian Eye Institute (Darian-Smith, Howie, Abell, Allen, Vote, Toh), Launceston, Tasmania, and the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital (Abell, Kerr), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare changes in intraocular pressure (IOP) during femtosecond laser pretreatment of cataract between glaucomatous eyes and nonglaucomatous eyes. SETTING: Launceston Eye Institute and Launceston Eye Hospital, Launceston, Australia. DESIGN: Nonrandomized interventional prospective case series. METHODS: Patients with clinically stable primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) having femtosecond laser pretreatment were compared with a concurrent cohort of patients with healthy eyes having the same procedure. Pretreatment was performed using a fluid-filled optical docking system (Liquid Optics Interface). With the patient supine, the IOP was measured at 4 time points using a rebound tonometer (Icare Pro). RESULTS: The study comprised 143 eyes of 97 patients. Forty-three eyes (30.1%) had documented glaucoma. The mean baseline IOP was 20.2 mm Hg ± 4.2 (SD) in glaucomatous eyes and 18.9 ± 4.0 mm Hg in nonglaucomatous eyes (P = .06). The mean change in IOP values between each time frame and baseline was as follows: vacuum-on, 13.8 ± 9.9 mm Hg and 11.1 ± 6.9 mm Hg, respectively (P = .06); after treatment, 17.4 ± 7.4 mm Hg and 14.1 ± 7.2 mm Hg, respectively (P = .014); after undocking of vacuum, 9.9 ± 5.4 mm Hg and 8.7 ± 5.7 mm Hg, respectively (P = .24). CONCLUSIONS: Femtosecond pretreatment caused a greater transient rise in IOP after treatment and a higher residual IOP after vacuum undocking in glaucomatous eyes than in nonglaucomatous eyes. This is well tolerated short term; however, long-term implications for eyes with glaucoma are unknown at present. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
PURPOSE: To compare changes in intraocular pressure (IOP) during femtosecond laser pretreatment of cataract between glaucomatous eyes and nonglaucomatous eyes. SETTING: Launceston Eye Institute and Launceston Eye Hospital, Launceston, Australia. DESIGN: Nonrandomized interventional prospective case series. METHODS:Patients with clinically stable primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) having femtosecond laser pretreatment were compared with a concurrent cohort of patients with healthy eyes having the same procedure. Pretreatment was performed using a fluid-filled optical docking system (Liquid Optics Interface). With the patient supine, the IOP was measured at 4 time points using a rebound tonometer (Icare Pro). RESULTS: The study comprised 143 eyes of 97 patients. Forty-three eyes (30.1%) had documented glaucoma. The mean baseline IOP was 20.2 mm Hg ± 4.2 (SD) in glaucomatous eyes and 18.9 ± 4.0 mm Hg in nonglaucomatous eyes (P = .06). The mean change in IOP values between each time frame and baseline was as follows: vacuum-on, 13.8 ± 9.9 mm Hg and 11.1 ± 6.9 mm Hg, respectively (P = .06); after treatment, 17.4 ± 7.4 mm Hg and 14.1 ± 7.2 mm Hg, respectively (P = .014); after undocking of vacuum, 9.9 ± 5.4 mm Hg and 8.7 ± 5.7 mm Hg, respectively (P = .24). CONCLUSIONS: Femtosecond pretreatment caused a greater transient rise in IOP after treatment and a higher residual IOP after vacuum undocking in glaucomatous eyes than in nonglaucomatous eyes. This is well tolerated short term; however, long-term implications for eyes with glaucoma are unknown at present. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
Authors: Gorka Lauzirika; Montserrat Garcia-Gonzalez; Gema Bolivar; José Luis Hernández-Verdejo; Vanesa Blázquez Sánchez; Juan Gros-Otero; Miguel A Teus Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Daniela Alvarez-Ascencio; Carolina Prado-Larrea; Jesus Jimenez-Roman; Rafael Castañeda-Diez Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep Date: 2021-07-09
Authors: Robert Edward Ty Ang; Michelle Marie Salcedo Quinto; Emerson Marquez Cruz; Mark Christian Reyes Rivera; Gladness Henna Austria Martinez Journal: Eye Vis (Lond) Date: 2018-04-23