| Literature DB >> 36158358 |
Sofia Fili1, Kalliopi Kontopoulou1, Iraklis Vastardis2, Georgios Perdikakis1, Markus Kohlhaas1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The study compares the efficacy and safety of PreserFlo™ MicroShunt (Santen, Osaka, Japan) and trabeculectomy in eyes with moderate to advanced open-angle glaucoma.Entities:
Keywords: anti-glaucoma eye drops; bleb; fibrosis; intraocular pressure; moderate to advanced glaucoma
Year: 2022 PMID: 36158358 PMCID: PMC9494189 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28288
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Demographic data, diagnoses, and previous surgeries of patients included in the study.
BCVA: best-corrected visual acuity; CD: cup-disc ratio; IOP: intraocular pressure; MD: mean deviation; MMC: mitomycin-C; TS-CPC: transscleral cyclophotocoagulation; Phaco: phacoemulsification; PCL: posterior capsular lens; RNFL: retinal nerve fiber layer; SD: standard deviation; TE: trabeculectomy
| Demographic data | Group A: PreserFlo | Group B: Trabeculectomy | P-Value |
| Female patients | 98 | 92 | |
| Male patients | 52 | 58 | |
| Total patients | 150 | 150 | |
| Range of age (years) | 38-91 | 48-87 | |
| Average age (years) | 73.31 | 68.99 | p=0.002 |
| SD age | 11.19 | 9.24 | |
| Right eye | 73 | 79 | |
| Left eye | 77 | 71 | |
| Total eyes | 150 | 150 | |
| Mean baseline MD (dB) ± SD | -11.8±9.28 | -12.64±8.32 | p=0.39 |
| Baseline IOP (mmHg) ± SD | 23.47±8.37 | 22.03±5.2 | p=0.06 |
| Baseline antiglaucoma agents ± SD | 2.6±1.17 | 2.7±0.7 | p=0.1 |
| Baseline BCVA (Snellen) ± SD | 0.6±0.25 | 0.6±0.07 | p=0.2 |
| Baseline CD ± SD | 0.91±0.14 | 0.89±0.14 | p=0.49 |
| Baseline RNFL thickness ± SD | 66.06±14.44 | 65.43±15.72 | p=0.053 |
| Operation | |||
| PreserFlo+Ologen+MMC | 140 | 106 | TE+MMC+Ologen |
| PreserFlo+Phaco+Ologen+MMC | 8 | 44 | TE+MMC+Ologen+Phaco/PCL |
| PreserFlo+MMC+ Ologen+Avastin Inj. | 1 | ||
| PreserFlo+MMC+Ologen+Iridectomy | 1 | ||
| Total | 150 | 150 | |
| Diagnosis | |||
| POAG | 125 | 131 | |
| Pigmentdispersion glaucoma | 4 | 0 | |
| PXG | 21 | 19 | |
| Total | 150 | 150 | |
| Previous surgeries | |||
| Phaco/PCL | 135 | 106 | |
| Canaloplasty | 35 | 28 | |
| TS-CPC | 11 | 0 | |
| Trabeculectomy | 3 | 2 | |
| Iridectomy | 3 | 0 | |
| Cypass | 2 | 0 | |
| iStent | 1 | 0 | |
Figure 1Mean IOP values with standard deviations for the 12-month follow-up period.
IOP: intraocular pressure
Figure 2Mean number of local glaucoma agents and the standard deviation for the 12-month follow-up period.
Parameters of monitoring glaucoma progression after PreserFlo™ implantation in group A and trabeculectomy in group B.
RNFL: retinal nerve fiber layer; SD: standard deviation
| Parameters of glaucoma progression monitoring | |||
| Baseline | 12 months | p-value | |
| Group A | |||
| Visual fields (Mean Value ± SD) | -11.8±9.27 | -10.51±8.63 | 0.17 |
| RNFL thickness (Mean Value ± SD) | 66.06±14.44 | 65.6±12.93 | 0.4 |
| Group B | |||
| Visual fields (Mean Value ± SD) | -12.64±8.32 | -11.4±9.27 | 0.21 |
| RNFL thickness (Mean Value ± SD) | 65.43±15.72 | 64.52±12.82 | 0.43 |
Postoperative complications after PreserFlo™ implantation (Group A) and trabeculectomy (Group B).
| Complications | |||||
| 2 weeks | 4 weeks | 12 weeks | 24 weeks | 48 weeks | |
| Group A: PreserFlo | |||||
| Bulbus hypotony | 18 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Seidel + | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Choroidal detachment | 18 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| IOP decompensation | 5 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 0 |
| Group B: Trabeculectomy | |||||
| Bulbus hypotony | 22 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Seidel + | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Choroidal detachment | 17 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| IOP decompensation | 2 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 4 |
Additional eye surgeries after PreserFlo™ implantation (Group A) and trabeculectomy (Group B).
AC: anterior chamber; mTS-CPC: MicroPulse® transscleral cyclophotocoagulation; TS-CPC: transscleral cyclophotocoagulation
| Postoperative Surgical Procedures to Treat Complications | |||||
| 2 weeks | 4 weeks | 12 weeks | 24 weeks | 48 weeks | |
| Group A: PreserFlo | |||||
| Suture removal | 1 | 17 | 9 | 4 | 2 |
| Reformation of AC | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Compression sutures | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| AC washout | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Bleb revision | 1 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| Needling | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| mTS-CPC | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| PreserFlo explantation | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Group B: Trabeculectomy | |||||
| Suture removal | 0 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 0 |
| Reformation of AC | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Compression sutures | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| AC washout | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Needling | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Bleb revision | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Re-trabeculectomy | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| mTS-CPC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Ahmed valve implantation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Figure 3Absolute success criteria in group A (PreserFlo™) and group B (trabeculectomy) presented in Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
Figure 4Qualified success criteria in in group A (PreserFlo™) and group B (trabeculectomy) presented in Kaplan-Meier survival curve.