May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
A Retrospective Analysis of Macular Hole Repair in Patients with Pre–existing Glaucoma
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • S.D. Adrean
    Ophthalmology, UC Davis, Sacramento, CA
  • N. Khodadadi
    Ophthalmology, UC Davis, Sacramento, CA
  • J. Pearlman
    Ophthalmology, UC Davis, Sacramento, CA
  • R. Wendel
    Ophthalmology, Retinal Consultants, Sacramento, CA
  • N. Kelly
    Ophthalmology, Retinal Consultants, Sacramento, CA
  • A. Patel
    Ophthalmology, Retinal Consultants, Sacramento, CA
  • L.S. Morse
    Ophthalmology, UC Davis, Sacramento, CA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  S.D. Adrean, None; N. Khodadadi, None; J. Pearlman, None; R. Wendel, None; N. Kelly, None; A. Patel, None; L.S. Morse, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  none
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 1961. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      S.D. Adrean, N. Khodadadi, J. Pearlman, R. Wendel, N. Kelly, A. Patel, L.S. Morse; A Retrospective Analysis of Macular Hole Repair in Patients with Pre–existing Glaucoma . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):1961.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To evaluate the clinical outcomes in patients with pre–existing glaucoma who underwent macular hole surgery. Methods: The medical charts of all patients with a history of glaucoma treated either medically or surgically with a concomitant history of macular hole were reviewed. Subjects sex, age, past ocular history, past surgical history, including the method of surgery (for both the macular hole repair and glaucoma surgery), postoperative visual acuity, intraocular pressures, the need for glaucoma medications, post–operative complications, and duration of follow up were examined. Results: Twenty–eight patients met the criteria for entrance into the study. Anatomic closure was achieved in 79% of patients. Of the 28 patients, eleven patients (39.3%) had two lines or greater of visual improvement. In patients with anatomic success, 50% of the patients had 2 lines or greater improvement in their visual acuity, while the other half of the patients had either no improvement, one line of improvement or loss of visual acuity. Twenty–five percent of the patients required a change in their glaucoma management after macular hole surgery. In the four patients with pre–existing trabeculectomies, 50% had failure of their glaucoma surgeries and 75 % of these patients did not have significant improvement in their visual acuity. Conclusions: While successful anatomic closure can be achieved in patients with glaucoma, their chance for visual improvement is more guarded than compared to other reported macular hole series in patients without glaucoma. Patients with pre–existing glaucoma may need a change in their glaucoma management, including surgical treatment, after macular hole surgery. In patients with a pre–existing trabeculectomy, their bleb may fail and this subset of patients should be warned that their visual outcomes are even more guarded.

Keywords: macular holes • outflow: trabecular meshwork 
×
×

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.

×