Outcome of consecutive trabeculectomy

Miriam Zalish*, Yoram Oron, Orna Geyer

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose: To establish a criterion for success of primary phakic trabeculectomy in the second eye of the same patient, using the first operated eye as a predictor for the surgical outcome. Methods: The outcome of primary phakic trabeculectomy was retrospectively compared in both eyes of 23 patients. Sixteen patients were treated with antimetabolites and seven were not. Postoperative intraocular pressure and number of glaucoma medications in paired eyes of the same patients were compared. Surgical success was defined as postoperative IOP of <20 mmHg without medication. Bleb morphology and the number of glaucoma medications were also compared in both eyes. Results: There was a positive correlation between the two eyes of a patient in the IOP values at each postoperative time point in both groups (with and without antimetabolites) (P > 0.05). At the last follow-up visit after trabeculectomy, the number of glaucoma medications used in paired eyes were not significantly different (P > 0.83). Surgical failure occurred more often in paired eyes than in single eyes. Bilateral failure occurred in 60% (3/5) of the failed trabeculectomies with antimetabolites and in 100% (3/3) of the failed trabeculectomies without antimetabolites. Conclusion: Trabeculectomy outcome in paired eyes of patients was similar in both antimetabolites treated and untreated eyes. Thus, trabeculectomy outcome in the first operated eye can predict the surgical result in the second eye of the same patient.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)19-22
Number of pages4
JournalClinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
Volume32
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2004

Keywords

  • Antimetabolites
  • Bilateral
  • Glaucoma
  • Trabeculectomy

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Outcome of consecutive trabeculectomy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this