| Literature DB >> 30832600 |
Tian Tian1, Mei Li2, Yingzi Pan1, Yu Cai1, Yuan Fang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with primary angle closure/glaucoma (PAC/PACG) with extensive peripheral anterior synechiae (PAS), and coexisting cataract, increasingly have been treated with phacoemulsification combined with goniosynechialysis (Phaco-GSL). Since the mechanisms of acute and chronic PAC/PACG may differ, the treatment effect of this procedure also may differ. The purpose of this study was to establish whether there was a difference in the therapeutic effect of Phaco-GSL on these two groups of patients, the results of which could provide clinical evidence for improvement in treatment protocols for patients with PAC/PACG and extensive PAS.Entities:
Keywords: Angle closure; Cataract; Goniosynechialysis; Phacoemulsification
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30832600 PMCID: PMC6399882 DOI: 10.1186/s12886-019-1070-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ophthalmol ISSN: 1471-2415 Impact factor: 2.209
Fig. 1Images of the anterior chamber angle under gonioscopic visualization during Phaco-GSL. a The image of synechial angle-closure before Phaco-GSL. b The image of the reopened anterior chamber angle after Phaco-GSL at the same site. Phaco-GSL refers to phacoemulsification combined with goniosynechialysis
The general condition of all subjects
| A group | C group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | |||
| Mean ± SD | 65.00 ± 9.54 | 65.14 ± 8.48 | 0.967a |
| Range | 51~87 | 48~75 | |
| Gender (%) | |||
| Male | 3 (23.1) | 3 (21.4) | 1.000b |
| Female | 10 (76.9) | 11 (78.6) | |
| Eye (%) | |||
| right | 6 (46.2) | 4 (28.6) | 0.440b |
| left | 7 (53.8) | 10 (71.4) | |
| Follow-up time (months) | |||
| Mean ± SD | 9.23 ± 6.53 | 9.00 ± 5.89 | 0.924a |
| Range | 3~18 | 3~18 | |
| Optic nerve damage | |||
| No prominent damage | 7 (53.8%) | 2 (14.4%) | 0.019c |
| mild | 5 (38.5%) | 6 (42.6%) | |
| advanced | 1 (7.7%) | 6 (42.6%) | |
| Dilated pupil (%) | |||
| Yes | 12 (92.3) | 1 (7.1) | <0.001b |
| No | 1 (7.7) | 13 (92.9) | |
Absolute values (percentage), unless stated otherwise. SD Standard deviation
aStudent’s t-test (independent samples test)
bχ2-test (Fisher’s exact test)
cMann–Whitney U-test
Visual acuity in two groups before and after the operation
| Acute group(n) | Chronic group(n) | Z value | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0~<0.1 | 0.1~0.25 | 0.3~0.5 | ≥0.5 | 0 | 0~<0.1 | 0.1~0.25 | 0.3~0.5 | ≥0.5 | |||
| baseline | 0 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 3.08 | 0.002a |
| Postoperative 3 m | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 8 | 1.19 | 0.302a |
| Postoperative 3 m(BCVA) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 0.039 | 0.981a |
aMann–Whitney U-test. UCVA Uncorrected visual acuity, BCVA Best corrected visual acuity
Comparison of IOP, the need for topical and systemic medications, CACD and the degree of PAS between the two groups prior to and after surgical intervention
| Acute | chronic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IOP (mmHg, mean ± SD) | |||||
| Baseline | 29.77 ± 11.55 | 26.00 ± 11.2 | 0.398a | ||
| Postoperative 1 m | 15 ± 1.63 | 0.003b | 17 ± 4.31 | 0.022b | 0.105a |
| Postoperative 3 m | 14.92 ± 1.66 | 0.003b | 14.93 ± 2.7 | 0.001b | 0.995a |
| Number of drops | |||||
| Baseline | |||||
| Median (min~max) | 3 (2~4) | 3 (1~4) | 0.202c | ||
| 1 | 0 (0%) | 1 (7.1%) | |||
| 2 | 2 (15.4%) | 5 (35.7%) | |||
| 3 | 8 (61.5%) | 6 (42.9%) | |||
| 4 | 3 (23.1%) | 2 (14.3%) | |||
| post-op 3 m | |||||
| Median (min~max) | 0 (0~0) | 0.001b | 0 (0~2) | 0.002b | |
| 0 | 13 (100%) | 10 (71.4%) | 0.220c | ||
| 1 | 0 (0%) | 1 (7.1%) | |||
| 2 | 0 (0%) | 3 (21.4%) | |||
| Number of systemic drugs | |||||
| Baseline | |||||
| Median (min~max) | 1 (0~2) | 0 (0~1) | 0.001c | ||
| 0 | 3 (23.1%) | 13 (92.9%) | |||
| 1 | 9 (69.2%) | 1 (7.1%) | |||
| 2 | 1 (7.7%) | 0 (0%) | |||
| Postoperative 3 m | |||||
| 0 | 13 (100%) | 0.002b | 14 (100%) | 0.317b | – |
| CACD (mm) | |||||
| Baseline | 1.68 ± 0.27 | 1.89 ± 0.23 | 0.042a | ||
| Postoperative 3 m | 3.29 ± 0.22 | 0.001b | 3.40 ± 0.25 | 0.001b | 0.226a |
| PAS (°, mean ± SD) | |||||
| pre-op | 314.23 ± 49.07 | 285.00 ± 53.28 | 0.152a | ||
| post-op 3 m | 116.54 ± 73.78 | <0.001b | 156.43 ± 56.35 | <0.001b | 0.125a |
aPostoperative versus baseline; b acute group versus chronic group. SD Standard deviation, IOP Intraocular pressure, CACD Central anterior chamber depth, PAS Peripheral anterior synechiae
aStudent’s t-test (independent samples test)
bWilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
cMann–Whitney U-test
Comparison of complications and surgical failure rate post-operation
| Acute | chronic | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Pain (number,%) | 6 (46.2%) | 3 (21.4%) | 0.236a |
| Hemorrhage (number,%) | 8 (61.5%) | 8 (57.1%) | 1.000a |
| Fibrinous reaction (number,%) | 6 (46.2%) | 0 (0%) | 0.006a |
| Failure (number,%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (35.7%) | 0.041a |
| Re-PAS (number,%) | 3 (30%) | 10 (83.3%) | 0.011a |
Absolute values (percentage)
aChi-Square Tests (Fisher’s Exact Test)
Re-PAS Recurrence of peripheral anterior synechiae
The occurrence time of re-PAS postoperatively (+: yes, −: no)
| Case number | ≤1 W | 1 W~1Mon | 1Mon~3Mon | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acute | 3 | + | – | – |
| 7 | – | – | – | |
| Chronic | 1 | + | + | + |
| 3 | + | + | – | |
| 3 | + | – | – | |
| 3 | – | + | – | |
| 2 | – | – | – |