Baerveldt implant versus trabeculectomy as the first filtering surgery for uncontrolled primary congenital glaucoma: a randomized clinical trial

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Rolim-de-Moura,Christiane
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Esporcatte,Bruno L. B., F. Netto,Camila, Paranhos Jr.,Augusto
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492020000300009
Resumo: ABSTRACT Purpose: Our initial goal was to compare the efficacy and safety of a glaucoma drainage device and trabeculectomy for children with primary congenital glaucoma after angular surgery failure. However, we discontinued the study due to the rate of complications and wrote this report to describe the results obtained with the two techniques in this particular group. Methods: This was a parallel, non-masked, controlled trial that included patients aged 0-13 years who had undergone previous trabeculotomy or goniotomy and presented inadequately controlled glaucoma with an intraocular pressure ≥21 mmHg on maximum tolerated medical therapy. We randomized the patients to undergo either placement of a 250-mm2 Baerveldt glaucoma implant or mitomycin-augmented trabeculectomy. The main outcome measure was intraocular pressure control. We calculated complete success (without hypotensive ocular medication) and qualified success (with medication) rates. We defined failure as uncontrolled intraocular pressure, presence of serious complications, abnormal increase in ocular dimensions, or confirmed visual acuity decrease. Results: We studied 13 eyes of 13 children (five in the glaucoma drainage device group; eight in the trabeculectomy group). Both surgical procedures produced a significant intraocular pressure reduction 12 months after intervention from the baseline (tube group, 22.8 ± 5.9 mmHg to 12.20 ± 4.14 mmHg, p=0.0113; trabeculectomy group, 23.7 ± 7.3 mmHg to 15.6 ± 5.9 mmHg, p=0.0297). None of the patients in the tube group and 37.5% of those in the trabeculectomy group achieved complete success in intraocular pressure control after 12 months of follow-up (p=0.928, Chi-square test). Two patients (40%) had serious complications at the time of tube aperture (implant extrusion, retinal detachment). Conclusions: Both the tube and trabeculectomy groups presented similar intraocular pressure controls, but complete success was more frequent in the trabeculectomy group. Non-valved glaucoma drainage devices caused potentially blinding complications during tube opening. Because of the small sample size, we could not draw conclusions as to the safety data of the studied technique.
id CBO-2_94df8d9614a06779f8a8eb2995eae72c
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0004-27492020000300009
network_acronym_str CBO-2
network_name_str Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Baerveldt implant versus trabeculectomy as the first filtering surgery for uncontrolled primary congenital glaucoma: a randomized clinical trialPrimary congenital glaucomaGlaucoma drainage implantsTrabeculectomy, MitomycinIntraocular pressureABSTRACT Purpose: Our initial goal was to compare the efficacy and safety of a glaucoma drainage device and trabeculectomy for children with primary congenital glaucoma after angular surgery failure. However, we discontinued the study due to the rate of complications and wrote this report to describe the results obtained with the two techniques in this particular group. Methods: This was a parallel, non-masked, controlled trial that included patients aged 0-13 years who had undergone previous trabeculotomy or goniotomy and presented inadequately controlled glaucoma with an intraocular pressure ≥21 mmHg on maximum tolerated medical therapy. We randomized the patients to undergo either placement of a 250-mm2 Baerveldt glaucoma implant or mitomycin-augmented trabeculectomy. The main outcome measure was intraocular pressure control. We calculated complete success (without hypotensive ocular medication) and qualified success (with medication) rates. We defined failure as uncontrolled intraocular pressure, presence of serious complications, abnormal increase in ocular dimensions, or confirmed visual acuity decrease. Results: We studied 13 eyes of 13 children (five in the glaucoma drainage device group; eight in the trabeculectomy group). Both surgical procedures produced a significant intraocular pressure reduction 12 months after intervention from the baseline (tube group, 22.8 ± 5.9 mmHg to 12.20 ± 4.14 mmHg, p=0.0113; trabeculectomy group, 23.7 ± 7.3 mmHg to 15.6 ± 5.9 mmHg, p=0.0297). None of the patients in the tube group and 37.5% of those in the trabeculectomy group achieved complete success in intraocular pressure control after 12 months of follow-up (p=0.928, Chi-square test). Two patients (40%) had serious complications at the time of tube aperture (implant extrusion, retinal detachment). Conclusions: Both the tube and trabeculectomy groups presented similar intraocular pressure controls, but complete success was more frequent in the trabeculectomy group. Non-valved glaucoma drainage devices caused potentially blinding complications during tube opening. Because of the small sample size, we could not draw conclusions as to the safety data of the studied technique.Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia2020-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492020000300009Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia v.83 n.3 2020reponame:Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)instname:Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)instacron:CBO10.5935/0004-2749.20200060info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRolim-de-Moura,ChristianeEsporcatte,Bruno L. B.F. Netto,CamilaParanhos Jr.,Augustoeng2020-05-26T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0004-27492020000300009Revistahttp://aboonline.org.br/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpaboonline@cbo.com.br||abo@cbo.com.br1678-29250004-2749opendoar:2020-05-26T00:00Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online) - Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Baerveldt implant versus trabeculectomy as the first filtering surgery for uncontrolled primary congenital glaucoma: a randomized clinical trial
title Baerveldt implant versus trabeculectomy as the first filtering surgery for uncontrolled primary congenital glaucoma: a randomized clinical trial
spellingShingle Baerveldt implant versus trabeculectomy as the first filtering surgery for uncontrolled primary congenital glaucoma: a randomized clinical trial
Rolim-de-Moura,Christiane
Primary congenital glaucoma
Glaucoma drainage implants
Trabeculectomy, Mitomycin
Intraocular pressure
title_short Baerveldt implant versus trabeculectomy as the first filtering surgery for uncontrolled primary congenital glaucoma: a randomized clinical trial
title_full Baerveldt implant versus trabeculectomy as the first filtering surgery for uncontrolled primary congenital glaucoma: a randomized clinical trial
title_fullStr Baerveldt implant versus trabeculectomy as the first filtering surgery for uncontrolled primary congenital glaucoma: a randomized clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Baerveldt implant versus trabeculectomy as the first filtering surgery for uncontrolled primary congenital glaucoma: a randomized clinical trial
title_sort Baerveldt implant versus trabeculectomy as the first filtering surgery for uncontrolled primary congenital glaucoma: a randomized clinical trial
author Rolim-de-Moura,Christiane
author_facet Rolim-de-Moura,Christiane
Esporcatte,Bruno L. B.
F. Netto,Camila
Paranhos Jr.,Augusto
author_role author
author2 Esporcatte,Bruno L. B.
F. Netto,Camila
Paranhos Jr.,Augusto
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Rolim-de-Moura,Christiane
Esporcatte,Bruno L. B.
F. Netto,Camila
Paranhos Jr.,Augusto
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Primary congenital glaucoma
Glaucoma drainage implants
Trabeculectomy, Mitomycin
Intraocular pressure
topic Primary congenital glaucoma
Glaucoma drainage implants
Trabeculectomy, Mitomycin
Intraocular pressure
description ABSTRACT Purpose: Our initial goal was to compare the efficacy and safety of a glaucoma drainage device and trabeculectomy for children with primary congenital glaucoma after angular surgery failure. However, we discontinued the study due to the rate of complications and wrote this report to describe the results obtained with the two techniques in this particular group. Methods: This was a parallel, non-masked, controlled trial that included patients aged 0-13 years who had undergone previous trabeculotomy or goniotomy and presented inadequately controlled glaucoma with an intraocular pressure ≥21 mmHg on maximum tolerated medical therapy. We randomized the patients to undergo either placement of a 250-mm2 Baerveldt glaucoma implant or mitomycin-augmented trabeculectomy. The main outcome measure was intraocular pressure control. We calculated complete success (without hypotensive ocular medication) and qualified success (with medication) rates. We defined failure as uncontrolled intraocular pressure, presence of serious complications, abnormal increase in ocular dimensions, or confirmed visual acuity decrease. Results: We studied 13 eyes of 13 children (five in the glaucoma drainage device group; eight in the trabeculectomy group). Both surgical procedures produced a significant intraocular pressure reduction 12 months after intervention from the baseline (tube group, 22.8 ± 5.9 mmHg to 12.20 ± 4.14 mmHg, p=0.0113; trabeculectomy group, 23.7 ± 7.3 mmHg to 15.6 ± 5.9 mmHg, p=0.0297). None of the patients in the tube group and 37.5% of those in the trabeculectomy group achieved complete success in intraocular pressure control after 12 months of follow-up (p=0.928, Chi-square test). Two patients (40%) had serious complications at the time of tube aperture (implant extrusion, retinal detachment). Conclusions: Both the tube and trabeculectomy groups presented similar intraocular pressure controls, but complete success was more frequent in the trabeculectomy group. Non-valved glaucoma drainage devices caused potentially blinding complications during tube opening. Because of the small sample size, we could not draw conclusions as to the safety data of the studied technique.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-06-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492020000300009
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492020000300009
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.5935/0004-2749.20200060
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia v.83 n.3 2020
reponame:Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
instname:Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)
instacron:CBO
instname_str Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)
instacron_str CBO
institution CBO
reponame_str Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
collection Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online) - Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv aboonline@cbo.com.br||abo@cbo.com.br
_version_ 1754209030766592000