| Literature DB >> 31647848 |
Shogo Arimura1, Kentaro Iwasaki1, Makoto Gozawa1, Yoshihiro Takamura1, Masaru Inatani1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aims to compare the rate of surgical failure after trabeculectomy followed by phacoemulsification vs trabeculectomy alone for 5 years.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31647848 PMCID: PMC6812865 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223439
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Patient characteristics.
| Factor | Trabeculectomy Followed by Phacoemulsification Group | Trabeculectomy Alone Group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| n = 40 | n = 208 | ||
| 67.9 ± 9.0 | 59.9 ± 11.2 | <0.01 | |
| 20/20 | 77/131 | 0.13 | |
| 8/32 | 22/185 | 0.12 | |
| 0.12 ± 0.24 | 0.16 ± 0.43 | 0.14 | |
| 22.1 ± 8.7 | 20.5 ± 6.3 | 0.47 | |
| 2.3 ± 1.2 | 2.8 ± 1.0 | 0.02 | |
| 15/25 | 69/139 | 0.60 | |
| −2.6 ± 4.1 | −3.3 ± 4.1 | 0.20 | |
| −18.4 ± 7.2 | −18.1 ± 8.6 | 0.90 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation
XFG = exfoliative glaucoma, POAG = primary open-angle glaucoma, LogMAR = logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution, BCVA = best collective visual acuity IOP = intraocular pressure, D = diopter, MD = mean deviation
*Wilcoxon’s nonparametric test.
Fig 1Kaplan–Meier survival curves of the 5-year probability of success in the trabeculectomy followed by phacoemulsification and trabeculectomy alone groups.
(Left) For criterion A (intraocular pressure ≥ 21 mm Hg; <20% reduction of the preoperative intraocular pressure), (Center) for criterion B (intraocular pressure ≥ 18 mm Hg; <20% reduction of the preoperative intraocular pressure), and (Right) for criterion C (intraocular pressure ≥ 15 mm Hg; <20% reduction of the preoperative intraocular pressure). Surgical failure in all the criteria includes reoperation for glaucoma, loss of light perception, or low intraocular pressure (≤5 mm Hg). Trab = Trabeculectomy, Phaco = Phacoemulsification.
Insufficient IOP reduction for surgical failure.
| Criterion | Trabeculectomy Followed by Phacoemulsification Group | Trabeculectomy Alone Group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| n = 40 | n = 208 | ||
| n = 17 (43%) | n = 59 (28%) | 0.10 | |
| n = 19 (48%) | n = 72 (35%) | 0.13 | |
| n = 23 (58%) | n = 104 (50%) | 0.42 |
IOP = intraocular pressure
The data were analyzed with chi-square test.
The reason for surgical failure.
| Factor | Trabeculectomy Followed by Phacoemulsification Group | Trabeculectomy Alone Group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| n = 40 | n = 208 | ||
| Loss of light perception | n = 0 (0%) | n = 0 (0%) | |
| Bleb needling after 6 months or reoperation | n = 3 (8%) | n = 12 (6%) | 0.67 |
| Low IOP | n = 4 (7%) | n = 14 (10%) | 0.47 |
IOP = intraocular pressure
Surgical failure due to the loss of the light perception was not observed in all the patients.
The data were analyzed with chi-square test.
Hazard ratio analyzed using multivariate cox proportional hazards regression models.
| Factor | Criterion | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | ||||
| HR (95% Cl) | HR (95% Cl) | P value | HR (95% Cl) | |||
| 0.99 (0.98–1.01) | 0.24 | 0.99 (0.98–1.01) | 0.25 | 0.99 (0.98–1.01) | 0.38 | |
| 1.12 (0.66–1.83) | 0.66 | 0.92 (0.53–1.52) | 0.75 | 0.79 (0.45–1.34) | 0.40 | |
| 2.14 (1.32–3.30) | < 0.01 | 1.96 (1.21–3.02) | < 0.01 | 1.93 (1.21–2.95) | < 0.01 | |
| 0.94 (0.92–0.98) | < 0.01 | 0.97 (0.94–0.99) | 0.01 | 0.99 (0.96–1.01) | 0.33 | |
| 0.98 (0.86–1.13) | 0.81 | 0.97 (0.85–1.11) | 0.68 | 0.99 (0.86–1.13) | 0.83 | |
| 0.90 (0.64–1.27) | 0.56 | 0.84 (0.59–1.18) | 0.31 | 0.84 (0.59–1.18) | 0.31 | |
| 1.01 (0.99–1.03) | 0.34 | 1.01 (0.99–1.02) | 0.23 | 1.01 (0.99–1.03) | 0.18 | |
| 0.98 (0.96–0.99) | 0.01 | 0.98 (0.96–0.99) | <0.01 | 0.98 (0.97–0.99) | 0.03 | |
XFG = exfoliative glaucoma, POAG = primary open-angle glaucoma, LogMAR = logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution, BCVA = best collective visual acuity, IOP = intraocular pressure, MD = mean deviation, HR = hazard ratio
*P < 0.05