Cargando…

Comparison of ExPress Mini-Device Implantation Alone or Combined with Phacoemulsification for the Treatment of Open-Angle Glaucoma

We propose comparative assessment of the effectiveness of two surgical methods for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma: (1) ExPress mini-device implantation combined with phacoemulsification and (2) ExPress mini-device implantation alone. In this prospective study, 81 patients (88 phakic eyes) with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stawowski, Łukasz, Konopińska, Joanna, Deniziak, Marta, Saeed, Emil, Zalewska, Renata, Mariak, Zofia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4630402/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26576293
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/613280
_version_ 1782398696231534592
author Stawowski, Łukasz
Konopińska, Joanna
Deniziak, Marta
Saeed, Emil
Zalewska, Renata
Mariak, Zofia
author_facet Stawowski, Łukasz
Konopińska, Joanna
Deniziak, Marta
Saeed, Emil
Zalewska, Renata
Mariak, Zofia
author_sort Stawowski, Łukasz
collection PubMed
description We propose comparative assessment of the effectiveness of two surgical methods for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma: (1) ExPress mini-device implantation combined with phacoemulsification and (2) ExPress mini-device implantation alone. In this prospective study, 81 patients (88 phakic eyes) with uncontrolled open-angle glaucoma enrolled for surgery. They were assigned two groups, those with coexisting cataracts (46 eyes; P-ExPress group) and those with glaucoma alone (42 eyes; ExPress group). The follow-up period was 12.9 ± 0.4 months in P-ExPress and 12.2 ± 0.6 months in ExPress group. In both groups the following parameters were measured: best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), number of complications and necessary postoperative interventions, and number of glaucoma medications. The IOP at the end of follow-up was similar in both groups (18.8 ± 5.9 versus 18.1 ± 4.8 mmHg; P = 0.814). There were no statistical differences in the average number of glaucoma medications between ExPress and P-ExPress groups (0.9 ± 1.65 versus 1.3 ± 1.7; P = 0.419) as well as in the number of postoperative complications (26 versus 21%; P = 0.179 in the P-ExPress and ExPress groups, resp.). Both methods are safe and effective for the surgical treatment of open-angle glaucoma. Coexistence of cataracts does not constitute a compelling contraindication for combined surgery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4630402
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46304022015-11-16 Comparison of ExPress Mini-Device Implantation Alone or Combined with Phacoemulsification for the Treatment of Open-Angle Glaucoma Stawowski, Łukasz Konopińska, Joanna Deniziak, Marta Saeed, Emil Zalewska, Renata Mariak, Zofia J Ophthalmol Research Article We propose comparative assessment of the effectiveness of two surgical methods for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma: (1) ExPress mini-device implantation combined with phacoemulsification and (2) ExPress mini-device implantation alone. In this prospective study, 81 patients (88 phakic eyes) with uncontrolled open-angle glaucoma enrolled for surgery. They were assigned two groups, those with coexisting cataracts (46 eyes; P-ExPress group) and those with glaucoma alone (42 eyes; ExPress group). The follow-up period was 12.9 ± 0.4 months in P-ExPress and 12.2 ± 0.6 months in ExPress group. In both groups the following parameters were measured: best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), number of complications and necessary postoperative interventions, and number of glaucoma medications. The IOP at the end of follow-up was similar in both groups (18.8 ± 5.9 versus 18.1 ± 4.8 mmHg; P = 0.814). There were no statistical differences in the average number of glaucoma medications between ExPress and P-ExPress groups (0.9 ± 1.65 versus 1.3 ± 1.7; P = 0.419) as well as in the number of postoperative complications (26 versus 21%; P = 0.179 in the P-ExPress and ExPress groups, resp.). Both methods are safe and effective for the surgical treatment of open-angle glaucoma. Coexistence of cataracts does not constitute a compelling contraindication for combined surgery. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2015 2015-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4630402/ /pubmed/26576293 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/613280 Text en Copyright © 2015 Łukasz Stawowski 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
Stawowski, Łukasz
Konopińska, Joanna
Deniziak, Marta
Saeed, Emil
Zalewska, Renata
Mariak, Zofia
Comparison of ExPress Mini-Device Implantation Alone or Combined with Phacoemulsification for the Treatment of Open-Angle Glaucoma
title Comparison of ExPress Mini-Device Implantation Alone or Combined with Phacoemulsification for the Treatment of Open-Angle Glaucoma
title_full Comparison of ExPress Mini-Device Implantation Alone or Combined with Phacoemulsification for the Treatment of Open-Angle Glaucoma
title_fullStr Comparison of ExPress Mini-Device Implantation Alone or Combined with Phacoemulsification for the Treatment of Open-Angle Glaucoma
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of ExPress Mini-Device Implantation Alone or Combined with Phacoemulsification for the Treatment of Open-Angle Glaucoma
title_short Comparison of ExPress Mini-Device Implantation Alone or Combined with Phacoemulsification for the Treatment of Open-Angle Glaucoma
title_sort comparison of express mini-device implantation alone or combined with phacoemulsification for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4630402/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26576293
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/613280
work_keys_str_mv AT stawowskiłukasz comparisonofexpressminideviceimplantationaloneorcombinedwithphacoemulsificationforthetreatmentofopenangleglaucoma
AT konopinskajoanna comparisonofexpressminideviceimplantationaloneorcombinedwithphacoemulsificationforthetreatmentofopenangleglaucoma
AT deniziakmarta comparisonofexpressminideviceimplantationaloneorcombinedwithphacoemulsificationforthetreatmentofopenangleglaucoma
AT saeedemil comparisonofexpressminideviceimplantationaloneorcombinedwithphacoemulsificationforthetreatmentofopenangleglaucoma
AT zalewskarenata comparisonofexpressminideviceimplantationaloneorcombinedwithphacoemulsificationforthetreatmentofopenangleglaucoma
AT mariakzofia comparisonofexpressminideviceimplantationaloneorcombinedwithphacoemulsificationforthetreatmentofopenangleglaucoma