Comparisons of the short-term effectiveness and safety of surgical treatment for neovascular glaucoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of the six interventions for neovascular glaucoma. DESIGN: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials and cohort studies which compared the six interventions in neovascular glaucoma were identified using the following databases searched up to 1 September 2020: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science. The quality assessment was conducted by using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The primary outcome measure was the weighted mean differences for intraocular pressure reduction. Secondary one was ORs for success rate. Outcome measures were reported with a 95% CI and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Network meta-analysis was performed using Stata V.15.0. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies involving a total of 1303 patients were included. The types of surgical treatments included Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implant surgery, AGV combined with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (AGV +IVAV), cyclophotocoagulation (CPC), cyclocryotherapy (CCT), trabeculectomy with mitomycin (Trab(MMC)) and Trab(MMC) combined with IVAV (Trab(MMC)+IVAV). Network meta-analysis showed that in comparison with AGV, AGV +IVAV (MD=4.74, 95% CI 1.04 to 8.45) and Trab(MMC)+IVAV (MD=6.19, 95% CI 0.99 to 11.40) showed a favourable effect in intraocular pressure reduction (IOPR) 6 months after surgery. Compared with CCT, AGV (OR=−0.17, 95% CI −0.53 to −0.05), AGV +IVAV (OR=−0.10, 95% CI −3.48 to −1.19), CPC (OR=−0.12, 95% CI −0.53 to −0.05), Trab(MMC) (OR=3.54, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.91) and Trab(MMC)+IVAV (OR=5.78, 95% CI 2.29 to 14.61) showed a superior impact in success rate. The order of efficacy as best intervention ranked as follows: Trab(MMC)+IVAV (IOPR 6 months after surgery, surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA)=88.1), CPC (IOPR 12 months after surgery, SUCRA=81.9), AGV +IVAV (IOPR 12 months after surgery, SUCRA=79.9) and AGV +IVAV (success rate, SUCRA=92.7). Adverse events were also summarised in detail. CONCLUSION: In the treatment of neovascular glaucoma, AGV+IVAV and CPC were more effective in IOPR and success rate than the other four interventions. Additionally, AGV+IVAV is superior to CPC concerning the success rate in the long-term treatment. However, considering the limitations of this review, more high-quality trials, especially those surgical interventions not mentioned in this review, should be carried out in the future to further confirm the current findings.