June 2020
Volume 61, Issue 7
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2020
Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgeries, Is Two Better Than One?
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Suzanne Kirk
    Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois, United States
  • Clayton Kirk
    Ophthalmology, Loyola University Health System, Maywood, Illinois, United States
  • Robert Barnes
    Glen Ellyn Ophthalmology Associates, Glen Ellyn, Illinois, United States
    Aurora Eye Clinic, Aurora, Illinois, United States
  • Tyler Kirk
    Kirk Eye Center, River Forest, Illinois, United States
    Aurora Eye Clinic, Aurora, Illinois, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Suzanne Kirk, None; Clayton Kirk, None; Robert Barnes, None; Tyler Kirk, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2020, Vol.61, 976. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Suzanne Kirk, Clayton Kirk, Robert Barnes, Tyler Kirk; Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgeries, Is Two Better Than One?. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2020;61(7):976.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : The purpose of this research is to compare three different approaches to glaucoma management during phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PECS) to reduce intraocular pressure (IOP). (1) PECS with Endoscopic Cyclophotocoagulation (ECP) (PECS/ECP group); (2) PECS with Kahook Dual Blade (KDB) goniotomy (PECS/KDB group); (3) PECS with ECP and KDB goniotomy (PECS/KDB/ECP group). Previous research has explored MIGS procedures combined with PECS however, no study directly compared the efficacy of these against one another.

Methods : This is a multicenter retrospective observational case series of 82 patients who received either PECS/ECP (n=29), or PECS/KDB (n=26), or PECS/KDB/ECP (n=27). The primary outcome of this project was reduction in IOP. Success was defined as an IOP reduction of at least 20%. Secondary outcomes included improvement in vision, changes in IOP, and changes in number of topical IOP lowering medications. The patients were seen 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months postoperatively.

Results : Mean IOP in the PECS/ECP group went from an average of 16.5 mmHg at baseline to 13.5 mmHg at 6 months (18%). Mean number of medications prescribed in this group went from 1.96 at baseline to 1.36 at 6 months (21%). Vision changes in the PECS/ECP group went from an average of 0.593 (logMAR) at baseline to 0.163 at 6 months.
Mean IOP in the PECS/KDB group went from an average of 17.1 mmHg at baseline to 13.3 mmHg at 6 months (21%). Mean number of medications prescribed in this group went from 2.53 at baseline to 2.28 at 6 months (2%). Mean change in vision changed from an average of 0.481 at baseline to 0.133 at 6 months.
Mean IOP in the PECS/KDB/ECP group went from an average of 16.9 mmHg at baseline to 12.8 mmHg at 6 months (24%). Mean number of medications prescribed in this group went from 2.31 at baseline to 1.5 at 6 months (36%). Mean change in vision changed from 0.707 at baseline to 0.326 at 6 months.

Conclusions : While all three MIGS procedures were safe and effective in lowering IOP, reducing dependence of topical IOP lowering therapy, and improving vision, there was little statistically significant difference between these procedures when comparing them against one another. Vision was not significantly improved with PECS/KDB (p=0.053) as compared to the combined procedure. Medication burden was significantly reduced in the PECS/KDB/ECP group (p = 0.00128) relative to the PECS/KDB group and PECS/ECP group.

This is a 2020 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

×
×

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.

×