May 2005
Volume 46, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2005
A Prospective Randomized Comparison of One– versus Two–Site Phacotrabeculectomy
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • B. Zack
    Department of Ophthalmology,
    University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
  • M. Chipman
    Departments of Ophthalmology and Public Health Sciences,
    University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
  • G. Trope
    Department of Ophthalmology,
    University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
  • D. Rootman
    Department of Ophthalmology,
    University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
  • A. Slomovic
    Department of Ophthalmology,
    University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
  • Y. Buys
    Department of Ophthalmology,
    University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  B. Zack, None; M. Chipman, None; G. Trope, None; D. Rootman, None; A. Slomovic, None; Y. Buys, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  Pfizer
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2005, Vol.46, 105. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      B. Zack, M. Chipman, G. Trope, D. Rootman, A. Slomovic, Y. Buys; A Prospective Randomized Comparison of One– versus Two–Site Phacotrabeculectomy . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):105.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To evaluate intraocular pressure lowering following one– versus two–site phacotrabeculectomy. Methods: Eligible patients scheduled for phacotrabeculectomy were randomized to either one–site or two–site surgery. Data recorded included patient demographics, best–corrected visual acuity, IOP, endothelial cell counts and number of glaucoma medications. Also, phacoemulsification settings (including power, ultrasound time and fluid volume), iris manipulation, post–operative suture lysis, 5FU or needling were recorded along with any complications. Follow–up data were obtained for 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. Results: Of 80 patients enrolled, 73 patients have completed 3 months post–operative follow–up (37 one–site; 36 two–site). 64 patients have completed 6 months post–operative follow–up. 47 patients have completed 12 months post–operative follow–up. Pre–operative mean IOP was 17.6+/–4.7 mmHg (range 12–36) (one–site) and 17.6+/–5.5 mmHg (range 10–34) (two–site), p=0.49. There were no significant differences in the demographics of each group. Intraoperative complications occurred in 3 patients (one–site) (partial flap dehiscence, zonular dehiscence, posterior capsular rupture), and 3 patients (two–site) (incision tore to limbus, conjunctival button hole, posterior capsular rupture). Post–operative complications occurred in 5 patients (one–site) (diabetic macular edema, diabetic vitreous hemorrhage, suture infection, traumatic globe rupture, wound dehiscence), and 0 patients (two–site) p=0.055. The mean IOP at 3 months post–operative was 12.7+/–6.2 mmHg (one–site), and 11.8+/–3.5 mmHg (two–site), p=0.39. Mean decrease in IOP was 4.9 +/– 7.3 mmHg (28%) versus 5.6 +/– 6.6 mmHg (32%, p=0.67), 4.9+/–6.1 mmHg (28%) versus 5.7+/–5.7 mmHg (32%, p=0.59), and 4.7+/–5.0 mmHg (27%) versus 6.8+/–5.8 mmHg (39%, p=0.20), for one– versus two–site at 3, 6 and 12 months respectively. There was a significant lowering of IOP compared to pre–operative baseline IOP for both groups at all time points (p< 0.05). The mean number of glaucoma medications at 3,6 and 12 months decreased from a mean of 2.9 and 2.9 to 0.0 and 0.1 for one– and two–site respectively, p=0.99. Conclusions: Interim data at 3, 6 and 12 months follow–up show no statistical difference in IOP between the groups although there appears to be a trend to lower IOP in the two–site group. Both groups also had similar, significant reductions in their medications and improvements in their visual acuity.

Keywords: clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: outcomes/complications 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×