BMC ophthalmology · 2023
The effects of the first versus second glaucoma drainage implant surgery in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Morita Shuu, Hamanaka Teruhiko, Sakurai Tetsuro, Watanabe Satoshi, Sakanishi Yoshihito, Ishida Nobuo, Ebihara Nobuyuki
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To investigate the outcome of non-valved glaucoma drainage implant surgery (GDIS) in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients divided in the first GDI group (patients who underwent the first GDIS) and the second GDI group (patients who underwent the second GDIS because of the failed first GDIS).
METHODS: Intraocular pressure (IOP), visual acuity (VA), visual field defect (VFD), medication score (MS), survival rate of GDIS, complications, and patient background was retrospectively analyzed. Two success criteria were set: Criteria (1) IOP reduction ≥ 20% and 5 < IOP ≤ 21, Criteria (2) IOP reduction ≥ 20% and 5 < IOP ≤ 14.
RESULTS: There were 136 eyes of 109 patients in the first GDI group and 32 eyes of 27 patients in the second GDI group. In the first GDI group and II, mean preoperative IOP was 26.7 ± 6.7 mmHg and 23.7 ± 3.5 mmHg, respectively (P = 0.09). No statistically significant difference in postoperative IOP reduction was found between the two groups (P = 0.39). At 5-years postoperative, the Criteria 1 (Criteria 2) survival rate in the first GDI group and the second GDI group was 60.4% (31.7%) and 61.2% (25.6%), respectively (Criteria 1: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30-1.35 [P = 0.24]; Criteria 2: HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.46-1.44, P = 0.48). No significant difference in VA, VFD change, MS, or complications was observed. Young patient age was the only significant factor for failure in the first GDI group (odds ratio: 0.95, 95% confidence interval: 0.91-1.00, P = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: The second GDIS may be as effective as the first GDIS for IOP reduction in POAG patients, however, there is a high risk of failure in young-age patients and the surgery may be ineffective in eyes requiring Criteria 2.
METHODS: Intraocular pressure (IOP), visual acuity (VA), visual field defect (VFD), medication score (MS), survival rate of GDIS, complications, and patient background was retrospectively analyzed. Two success criteria were set: Criteria (1) IOP reduction ≥ 20% and 5 < IOP ≤ 21, Criteria (2) IOP reduction ≥ 20% and 5 < IOP ≤ 14.
RESULTS: There were 136 eyes of 109 patients in the first GDI group and 32 eyes of 27 patients in the second GDI group. In the first GDI group and II, mean preoperative IOP was 26.7 ± 6.7 mmHg and 23.7 ± 3.5 mmHg, respectively (P = 0.09). No statistically significant difference in postoperative IOP reduction was found between the two groups (P = 0.39). At 5-years postoperative, the Criteria 1 (Criteria 2) survival rate in the first GDI group and the second GDI group was 60.4% (31.7%) and 61.2% (25.6%), respectively (Criteria 1: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30-1.35 [P = 0.24]; Criteria 2: HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.46-1.44, P = 0.48). No significant difference in VA, VFD change, MS, or complications was observed. Young patient age was the only significant factor for failure in the first GDI group (odds ratio: 0.95, 95% confidence interval: 0.91-1.00, P = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: The second GDIS may be as effective as the first GDIS for IOP reduction in POAG patients, however, there is a high risk of failure in young-age patients and the surgery may be ineffective in eyes requiring Criteria 2.