MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of glaucoma · 2026
Slow-Coagulation Cyclophotocoagulation Versus Conventional Continuous Wave Cyclophotocoagulation and Micropulse Cyclophotocoagulation for the Treatment of Glaucoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Narainswami Neeran, Chavez Matheus P, Sperotto Pedro Henrique Ferrazza, Alves Nuno R, Lopes Guilherme Melchior Maia, Mazzocato Eduardo de Carvalho, Valentim Carolina Carvalho Soares, du Toit Nagib, Khodeiry Mohamed
Аннотация
PRCIS: SC-TSCPC significantly lowers intraocular pressure more effectively than MP-TSCPC and performs similarly to CW-TSCPC. Safety and visual outcomes are comparable, supporting its use as a nonincisional treatment option for various glaucoma patients.
INTRODUCTION: Slow-coagulation transscleral cyclophotocoagulation (SC-TSCPC) is an emerging laser modality for glaucoma management designed to lower intraocular pressure (IOP) with possible fewer complications than conventional continuous-wave (CW-TSCPC) and micropulse (MP-TSCPC) approaches. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of SC-TSCPC with those of MP-TSCPC and CW-TSCPC.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception through December 2025 for studies comparing SC-TSCPC with MP-TSCPC or "conventional" CW-TSCPC. Primary outcomes were IOP reduction from baseline and IOP at last follow-up. Secondary outcomes included medication burden, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), treatment success, and complications. We computed mean differences (MDs) for continuous endpoints and risk ratios (RRs) for binary endpoints, with 95% CIs.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies comprising 992 patients were included. SC-TSCPC achieved greater IOP reduction from baseline compared with MP-TSCPC ( MD 1.29 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.26-2.32, P =0.01, I2 =0%) but was comparable to conventional CW-TSCPC ( MD -1.00 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.14 to 1.13, P =0.36). IOP at last follow-up, number of medications, BCVA, treatment success, and total complication rates for SC-TSCPC were similar to those for MP-TSCPC or CW-TSCPC.
CONCLUSION: SC-TSCPC may provide comparable IOP control to CW-TSCPC and appears more effective than MP-TSCPC in lowering IOP, with a similar safety profile. It may represent a viable nonincisional treatment option for glaucoma, including patients who retain visual potential. These results require cautious interpretation due to the overall low-to-very low quality of evidence and significant heterogeneity among studies. Larger randomized studies are needed to validate these findings.
INTRODUCTION: Slow-coagulation transscleral cyclophotocoagulation (SC-TSCPC) is an emerging laser modality for glaucoma management designed to lower intraocular pressure (IOP) with possible fewer complications than conventional continuous-wave (CW-TSCPC) and micropulse (MP-TSCPC) approaches. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of SC-TSCPC with those of MP-TSCPC and CW-TSCPC.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception through December 2025 for studies comparing SC-TSCPC with MP-TSCPC or "conventional" CW-TSCPC. Primary outcomes were IOP reduction from baseline and IOP at last follow-up. Secondary outcomes included medication burden, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), treatment success, and complications. We computed mean differences (MDs) for continuous endpoints and risk ratios (RRs) for binary endpoints, with 95% CIs.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies comprising 992 patients were included. SC-TSCPC achieved greater IOP reduction from baseline compared with MP-TSCPC ( MD 1.29 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.26-2.32, P =0.01, I2 =0%) but was comparable to conventional CW-TSCPC ( MD -1.00 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.14 to 1.13, P =0.36). IOP at last follow-up, number of medications, BCVA, treatment success, and total complication rates for SC-TSCPC were similar to those for MP-TSCPC or CW-TSCPC.
CONCLUSION: SC-TSCPC may provide comparable IOP control to CW-TSCPC and appears more effective than MP-TSCPC in lowering IOP, with a similar safety profile. It may represent a viable nonincisional treatment option for glaucoma, including patients who retain visual potential. These results require cautious interpretation due to the overall low-to-very low quality of evidence and significant heterogeneity among studies. Larger randomized studies are needed to validate these findings.