| Literature DB >> 27014389 |
Masoumeh B Masoumpour1, M Hossein Nowroozzadeh2, M Reza Razeghinejad3.
Abstract
Filtering surgeries are frequently used for controlling intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients. The long-term success of operation is intimately influenced by the process of wound healing at the site of surgery. Indeed, if has not been anticipated and managed accordingly, filtering surgery in high-risk patients could end up in bleb failure. Several strategies have been developed so far to overcome excessive scarring after filtering surgery. The principal step involves meticulous tissue handling and modification of surgical technique, which can minimize the severity of wound healing response at the first place. However, this is usually insufficient, especially in those with high-risk criteria. Thus, several adjuvants have been tried to stifle the exuberant scarring after filtration surgery. Conventionally, corticosteroids and anti-fibrotic agents (including 5-fluorouracil and Mitomycin-C) have been used for over three decades with semi-acceptable outcomes. Blebs and bleb associated complications are catastrophic side effects of anti-fibrotic agents, which occasionally are encountered in a subset of patients. Therefore, research continues to find a safer, yet effective adjuvant for filtering surgery. Recent efforts have primarily focused on selective inhibition of growth factors that promote scarring during wound healing process. Currently, only anti-VEGF agents have gained widespread acceptance to be translated into routine clinical practice. Robust evidence for other agents is still lacking and future confirmative studies are warranted. In this review, we explain the importance of wound healing process during filtering surgery, and describe the conventional as well as potential future adjuvants for filtration surgeries.Entities:
Keywords: Anti-fibrotics; filtering surgery; glaucoma; trabeculectomy; wound healing
Year: 2016 PMID: 27014389 PMCID: PMC4780518 DOI: 10.2174/1874364101610010068
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Ophthalmol J ISSN: 1874-3641
Comparison of 5-FU application vs MMC as adjunctive therapy for glaucoma surgery.
| 5-Fluorouracil | Mitomycin C | |
|---|---|---|
|
| Fluorinated pyrimidine analogue |
Antibiotic agent derived from the soil fungus |
| Interferes with the synthesis of thymidine nucleotides | Cross-links DNA | |
|
| Fibroblasts |
Fibroblasts |
| Less | More | |
|
| Less | More |
| Usually multiple postoperative injection | Single intraoperative application | |
|
| Less frequent (7%) | More frequent (68%) |
| Less | More | |
|
|
Corneal epithelial toxicity
|
Scleritis |
Including bleb leak, hypotony, hypotony maculopathy, and late-onset endophthalmitis.
Intraoperative application decreases corneal complications by eliminating the need for postoperative injections.
Comparison of 3 different classes of intraoperative adjunctive medications for glaucoma surgery.
| Main Indication | Advantages | Disadvantages | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Primary trabeculectomy | Are available and inexpensive Reduce postoperative inflammation | May induce IOP rise in steroid-responders May not be as effective as anti-fibrotics |
| High-Risk patients Imminent failure | Very effective | Associated with thin bleb and bleb-related complications | |
|
| Neovascular glaucoma Primary trabeculectomy | Maximum ocular safety Reduce postoperative hyphema and inflammation | May induce systemic vascular attacks in susceptible patients May promote avascular blebs |