Yohei Hashimoto1,2, Nobuaki Michihata3, Hiroki Matsui4, Kiyohide Fushimi5, Hideo Yasunaga4, Makoto Aihara6. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. youhashimoto-tky@umin.ac.jp. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Health Economics, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. youhashimoto-tky@umin.ac.jp. 3. Department of Health Services Research, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Health Economics, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 5. Department of Health Policy and Informatics, Tokyo Medical and Dental University Graduate School, Tokyo, Japan. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare reoperation rates between Ex-PRESS implantation and trabeculectomy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using a national inpatient database in Japan. Patients aged 18-85 years with primary open-angle glaucoma or normal-tension glaucoma who underwent Ex-PRESS or trabeculectomy from 2010 to 2017 were included. We compared the reoperation rates between Ex-PRESS and trabeculectomy using mixed effects cox regression models. Covariates were sex, age, diabetes mellitus, simultaneous cataract surgery, ocular surgical history, and annual hospital volume for glaucoma surgery. Furthermore, we conducted propensity score (PS) matching and instrumental variable (IV) analyses to confirm the results of the conventional cox regression. We also compared total hospitalisation costs between the two treatments in the PS-matched groups. RESULTS: In total, 1027 eyes underwent Ex-PRESS and 6910 eyes underwent trabeculectomy. The reoperation rates were 7.6% and 5.8% in the Ex-PRESS and trabeculectomy groups, respectively. The most frequently performed type of reoperation was trabeculectomy in both groups. The mixed effects cox regression showed that Ex-PRESS had significantly higher reoperation rates than trabeculectomy [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.31-2.25; p < 0.001]. The PS and IV analyses also showed similar results (for PS analysis: aHR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.45-3.13; p < 0.001; for IV analysis: aHR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.05-4.85; p = 0.037). The total hospitalisation cost of Ex-PRESS (US$7076) was significantly greater than that of trabeculectomy (US$6223) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Ex-PRESS implantation had significantly higher reoperation rates and greater cost than trabeculectomy.
OBJECTIVE: To compare reoperation rates between Ex-PRESS implantation and trabeculectomy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using a national inpatient database in Japan. Patients aged 18-85 years with primary open-angle glaucoma or normal-tension glaucoma who underwent Ex-PRESS or trabeculectomy from 2010 to 2017 were included. We compared the reoperation rates between Ex-PRESS and trabeculectomy using mixed effects cox regression models. Covariates were sex, age, diabetes mellitus, simultaneous cataract surgery, ocular surgical history, and annual hospital volume for glaucoma surgery. Furthermore, we conducted propensity score (PS) matching and instrumental variable (IV) analyses to confirm the results of the conventional cox regression. We also compared total hospitalisation costs between the two treatments in the PS-matched groups. RESULTS: In total, 1027 eyes underwent Ex-PRESS and 6910 eyes underwent trabeculectomy. The reoperation rates were 7.6% and 5.8% in the Ex-PRESS and trabeculectomy groups, respectively. The most frequently performed type of reoperation was trabeculectomy in both groups. The mixed effects cox regression showed that Ex-PRESS had significantly higher reoperation rates than trabeculectomy [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.31-2.25; p < 0.001]. The PS and IV analyses also showed similar results (for PS analysis: aHR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.45-3.13; p < 0.001; for IV analysis: aHR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.05-4.85; p = 0.037). The total hospitalisation cost of Ex-PRESS (US$7076) was significantly greater than that of trabeculectomy (US$6223) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Ex-PRESS implantation had significantly higher reoperation rates and greater cost than trabeculectomy.