Cargando…

A Comparison between Tube Surgery, ND:YAG Laser and Diode Laser Cyclophotocoagulation in the Management of Refractory Glaucoma

Purpose. To compare the results of intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction by 3 treatment modalities, (a) glaucoma tube implants, (b) noncontact YAG laser cyclophotocoagulation (cycloYAG), and (c) contact transscleral diode laser cyclophotocoagulation (cyclodiode), in cases of advanced glaucoma refract...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bloom, Philip A., Clement, Colin I., King, Anthony, Noureddin, Baha, Sharma, Kamal, Hitchings, Roger A., Khaw, Peng T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3814063/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24222905
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/371951
_version_ 1782289197656178688
author Bloom, Philip A.
Clement, Colin I.
King, Anthony
Noureddin, Baha
Sharma, Kamal
Hitchings, Roger A.
Khaw, Peng T.
author_facet Bloom, Philip A.
Clement, Colin I.
King, Anthony
Noureddin, Baha
Sharma, Kamal
Hitchings, Roger A.
Khaw, Peng T.
author_sort Bloom, Philip A.
collection PubMed
description Purpose. To compare the results of intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction by 3 treatment modalities, (a) glaucoma tube implants, (b) noncontact YAG laser cyclophotocoagulation (cycloYAG), and (c) contact transscleral diode laser cyclophotocoagulation (cyclodiode), in cases of advanced glaucoma refractory to alternative treatments. Methods. A consecutive group of 45 eyes that received cycloYAG were matched against two control groups of patients who had received tube surgery or cyclodiode, each control group having been derived from a database of patients. Results. Mean pretreatment IOP improved from 41.3, 38.6, and 32.0 mmHg for the tube, cycloYAG, and cyclodiode groups, respectively, to 16.4, 22.1, and 19.3 mmHg, respectively. Treatment success was achieved in 78%, 69%, and 71% of the tube, cycloYAG, and cyclodiode groups, respectively. Visual acuity deteriorated 2 or more Snellen lines in 16%, 7%, and 9% of the patients in the tube, cycloYAG, and cyclodiode groups, respectively. Complications included retinal detachment, hypotony, and phthisis. Conclusions. All 3 methods provided acceptable IOP lowering in the short and medium term. Control of IOP was best in patients receiving tube surgery. Cyclodiode and cycloYAG treatments were similarly effective in lowering IOP. Tube surgery was associated with a greater incidence of sight threatening complications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3814063
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38140632013-11-11 A Comparison between Tube Surgery, ND:YAG Laser and Diode Laser Cyclophotocoagulation in the Management of Refractory Glaucoma Bloom, Philip A. Clement, Colin I. King, Anthony Noureddin, Baha Sharma, Kamal Hitchings, Roger A. Khaw, Peng T. Biomed Res Int Research Article Purpose. To compare the results of intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction by 3 treatment modalities, (a) glaucoma tube implants, (b) noncontact YAG laser cyclophotocoagulation (cycloYAG), and (c) contact transscleral diode laser cyclophotocoagulation (cyclodiode), in cases of advanced glaucoma refractory to alternative treatments. Methods. A consecutive group of 45 eyes that received cycloYAG were matched against two control groups of patients who had received tube surgery or cyclodiode, each control group having been derived from a database of patients. Results. Mean pretreatment IOP improved from 41.3, 38.6, and 32.0 mmHg for the tube, cycloYAG, and cyclodiode groups, respectively, to 16.4, 22.1, and 19.3 mmHg, respectively. Treatment success was achieved in 78%, 69%, and 71% of the tube, cycloYAG, and cyclodiode groups, respectively. Visual acuity deteriorated 2 or more Snellen lines in 16%, 7%, and 9% of the patients in the tube, cycloYAG, and cyclodiode groups, respectively. Complications included retinal detachment, hypotony, and phthisis. Conclusions. All 3 methods provided acceptable IOP lowering in the short and medium term. Control of IOP was best in patients receiving tube surgery. Cyclodiode and cycloYAG treatments were similarly effective in lowering IOP. Tube surgery was associated with a greater incidence of sight threatening complications. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2013 2013-10-07 /pmc/articles/PMC3814063/ /pubmed/24222905 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/371951 Text en Copyright © 2013 Philip A. Bloom et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bloom, Philip A.
Clement, Colin I.
King, Anthony
Noureddin, Baha
Sharma, Kamal
Hitchings, Roger A.
Khaw, Peng T.
A Comparison between Tube Surgery, ND:YAG Laser and Diode Laser Cyclophotocoagulation in the Management of Refractory Glaucoma
title A Comparison between Tube Surgery, ND:YAG Laser and Diode Laser Cyclophotocoagulation in the Management of Refractory Glaucoma
title_full A Comparison between Tube Surgery, ND:YAG Laser and Diode Laser Cyclophotocoagulation in the Management of Refractory Glaucoma
title_fullStr A Comparison between Tube Surgery, ND:YAG Laser and Diode Laser Cyclophotocoagulation in the Management of Refractory Glaucoma
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison between Tube Surgery, ND:YAG Laser and Diode Laser Cyclophotocoagulation in the Management of Refractory Glaucoma
title_short A Comparison between Tube Surgery, ND:YAG Laser and Diode Laser Cyclophotocoagulation in the Management of Refractory Glaucoma
title_sort comparison between tube surgery, nd:yag laser and diode laser cyclophotocoagulation in the management of refractory glaucoma
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3814063/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24222905
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/371951
work_keys_str_mv AT bloomphilipa acomparisonbetweentubesurgeryndyaglaseranddiodelasercyclophotocoagulationinthemanagementofrefractoryglaucoma
AT clementcolini acomparisonbetweentubesurgeryndyaglaseranddiodelasercyclophotocoagulationinthemanagementofrefractoryglaucoma
AT kinganthony acomparisonbetweentubesurgeryndyaglaseranddiodelasercyclophotocoagulationinthemanagementofrefractoryglaucoma
AT noureddinbaha acomparisonbetweentubesurgeryndyaglaseranddiodelasercyclophotocoagulationinthemanagementofrefractoryglaucoma
AT sharmakamal acomparisonbetweentubesurgeryndyaglaseranddiodelasercyclophotocoagulationinthemanagementofrefractoryglaucoma
AT hitchingsrogera acomparisonbetweentubesurgeryndyaglaseranddiodelasercyclophotocoagulationinthemanagementofrefractoryglaucoma
AT khawpengt acomparisonbetweentubesurgeryndyaglaseranddiodelasercyclophotocoagulationinthemanagementofrefractoryglaucoma
AT bloomphilipa comparisonbetweentubesurgeryndyaglaseranddiodelasercyclophotocoagulationinthemanagementofrefractoryglaucoma
AT clementcolini comparisonbetweentubesurgeryndyaglaseranddiodelasercyclophotocoagulationinthemanagementofrefractoryglaucoma
AT kinganthony comparisonbetweentubesurgeryndyaglaseranddiodelasercyclophotocoagulationinthemanagementofrefractoryglaucoma
AT noureddinbaha comparisonbetweentubesurgeryndyaglaseranddiodelasercyclophotocoagulationinthemanagementofrefractoryglaucoma
AT sharmakamal comparisonbetweentubesurgeryndyaglaseranddiodelasercyclophotocoagulationinthemanagementofrefractoryglaucoma
AT hitchingsrogera comparisonbetweentubesurgeryndyaglaseranddiodelasercyclophotocoagulationinthemanagementofrefractoryglaucoma
AT khawpengt comparisonbetweentubesurgeryndyaglaseranddiodelasercyclophotocoagulationinthemanagementofrefractoryglaucoma