Trabekulektomie versus Kanaloplastik

Matlach, Juliane; Klink, Thomas

doi:10.1007/s00347-014-3160-7

Cited by 7 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, we found similar results in the qualified success rate. We believe that our results are in line with these meta-analyses since the original studies [17][18][19][20][21] considered an IOP ⩽17 mmHg as an absolute success. In this study, we were able to achieve positive results from this comparison; however, prudence is required in the interpretation of our results in the various parameters tested, given the retrospective nature of this study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Many comparison studies shed light on this topic over the years. [17][18][19][20][21] In a benchmark study from Ayyala et al, the authors concluded that both canaloplasty and trabeculectomy achieved a significant reduction in IOP at 12 months. They reported a mean IOP reduction of 32% with canaloplasty compared to a 43% mean IOP reduction with trabeculectomy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Estimation of risk–benefit ratio and comparison of post-operative efficacy results between trabeculectomy and canaloplasty

Vastardis

Fili

Perdikakis

et al. 2020

European Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To estimate a risk–benefit ratio by comparing the efficacy of canaloplasty to trabeculectomy exclusively in pseudophakic eyes with primary open angle glaucoma. Patients and methods: One hundred four eyes that underwent ab externo canaloplasty and 136 eyes that underwent trabeculectomy with mitomycin C 0.02% and collagen matrix implantation were retrospectively compared. The efficacy was evaluated by evaluating the absolute success rate (5 ⩽ intraocular pressure ⩽ 15 mmHg) and the qualified success rate (intraocular pressure ⩽15 mmHg) using the Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. A meta-analysis to evaluate the relative risk of both procedures in relation to post-operative interventions was performed. Results: Mean intraocular pressure was significantly lower in both groups. Intraocular pressure decreased by 32.17% in the canaloplasty group and by 55.04% in the trabeculectomy group at 12 months (analysis of variance, p < 0.001). Medication use was lower in both groups (analysis of variance, p < 0.001) by the 12th month. The absolute success rate for canaloplasty was 20.19% of eyes compared to 52.21% of eyes with trabeculectomy ( p < 0.0001). The qualified success rate was not statistically different between groups ( p = 0.15). The relative risk ratio was not statistically different between groups (relative risk of 0.01 and weight of 49.65% for group A and relative risk of 0.0005 and weight of 50.35% for group B; p = 0.5). The hospitalization length was longer in trabeculectomy-treated patients ( t-test, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: The trabeculectomy group showed better results in terms of absolute success rate. However, canaloplasty may provide a better risk–benefit ratio in terms of qualified success rate, hospitalization time, and required post-operative interventions, since canaloplasty yielded equal or superior results compared to trabeculectomy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation of risk–benefit ratio and comparison of post-operative efficacy results between trabeculectomy and canaloplasty

Vastardis

Fili

Perdikakis

et al. 2020

European Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pillunat et al described a similar efficacy by comparing the implantation of the PreserFlo™ MicroShunt and the trabeculectomy concerning IOP reduction without any additional local agents [ 21 ]. The comparison of trabeculectomy to canaloplasty revealed that the trabeculectomy was able to reduce the IOP more sufficiently than the MicroShunt and with fewer additional local agents [ 16 , 22 ]. Nevertheless, Matlach et al, as well as Vastardis et al, described a lower risk of postoperative complications after canaloplasty [ 16 , 22 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

PreserFlo™ MicroShunt Versus Ab Externo Canaloplasty in Patients With Moderate to Advanced Open-Angle Glaucoma: 12-Month Follow-Up of a Single-Center Retrospective Study

Habbe¹,

Kohlhaas²,

Fili³

2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of the PreserFlo MicoShunt and the canaloplasty in patients with moderate to advanced glaucoma. MethodsIn this retrospective study, 300 patients with moderate to advanced glaucoma underwent either the implantation of the PreserFlo™ MicroShunt (group A) or a canaloplasty (group B). All patients underwent regular follow-up examinations in our department every two days, every two weeks, and every three, six, and 12 months postoperatively. Examinations included measurement of the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), slit-lamp biomicroscopy of the anterior and posterior segments, intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement using Goldmann applanation tonometry, visual field perimetry, and measurement of the endothelial cell density (ECD). Efficacy was shown by the absolute and qualified success rates calculated with the Kaplan-Meyer analysis. ResultsIn group A, IOP was significantly reduced at 12 months (13.37 ± 3.94 mmHg, p≤ 0.01) postoperatively in comparison to baseline (23.47 ± 8.39 mmHg). In group B, there was also a reduction in IOP at 12 months (14.32 ± 3.59 mmHg, p≤ 0.01) in comparison to the baseline (18.86 ± 5.82 mmHg). Comparing both groups, the IOP of patients who received the PreserFlo™ MicroShunt was significantly lower than the IOP of patients receiving canaloplasty after 12 months (p=0.049).Patients in both groups were treated with significantly fewer topical agents after 12 months (group A: baseline = 2.53±1.56; 12 months: 0.43 ± 0.83, p≤0.01; group B: baseline 2.62 ± 0.87; 12 months: 1.52 ± 0.99, p≤0.01). Patients receiving the PreserFlo™ MicroShunt applied significantly fewer topical agents than patients who underwent canaloplasty (p≤ 0.01).One year after surgery, the cumulative probability of absolute success was 81.33% in group A and 14.67% in group B. After one year, the cumulative probability of qualified success was 93.33% in group A and 82.00% in group B. ConclusionThe PreserFlo™ as well as the canaloplasty offer many advantages and only a few disadvantages for patients with glaucoma. However, the respective patient's history and individual risk profile play an important role in the decision of the glaucoma specialist regarding the most appropriate surgical treatment for each patient. Patients with a high risk of conjunctival scarring and postoperative complications may benefit more from a canaloplasty, whereas patients who need a lower average IOP and show intolerance to any topical agents may require the PreserFlo™ implantation.

show abstract

“…Im Folgenden sollen die Vor-und Nachteile einer fistulierenden Operation (Trabekulektomie) ausführlicher diskutiert werden, da diese gegenüber allen anderen operativen Verfahren eindeutig die beste Drucksenkung aufweist. Dies konnte in mehreren Vergleichsstudien und auch in Metaanalysen evidenzbasiert nachgewiesen werden [12,13] [14][15][16][17][18][19]. Hier sollen die Bemühungen der Moorfields-Gruppe um Sir Peng Khaw für das "save surgery system" hervorgehoben werden.…”

Section: Wann Muss Ein Glaukompatient Operiert Werden?unclassified

Operieren wir die Glaukome zu spät?

Stürmer

Faschinger

2017

Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As glaucoma specialists, we often ask ourselves why patients are referred so late for surgery. Usually the patient is referred in a far advanced stage of the disease after long-term conventional treatment with topical medications. By that time, substantial morphologic damage is present and the patient is disabled by far advanced visual field defects. In addition, decompensated intraocular pressure, despite maximal tolerated medical treatment, is seen. Delayed surgery due to late diagnosis is rather a rare event. Various reasons may be responsible for this late referral. Improved IOP-lowering medications (i.e., fixed combinations), personal aversion (fear and knowledge of lack of improvement in visual acuity) against surgery, and imperfect glaucoma procedures may play an important role. A retrospective review of the last 274 cases referred for filtering glaucoma surgery is used to describe and analyze criteria for adequate timing of glaucoma surgery. This study reveals that almost ¾ of patients are referred rather late for glaucoma surgery. Criteria for adequate timing of glaucoma surgery are given for non-glaucoma specialists in particular. They apply for all types of glaucoma surgery, and the pros and cons are discussed in detail. Trabeculectomy is still regarded as the gold standard of glaucoma surgery. Because trabeculectomy may not be an ideal glaucoma procedure, there is hope that the modern less-invasive glaucoma procedures (MIGS) will be able to extend indications for glaucoma surgery. This may also lower the hurdle of referral for glaucoma surgery for both patients and non-glaucoma specialist doctors.

show abstract

Trabekulektomie versus Kanaloplastik

Cited by 7 publications

References 32 publications

Estimation of risk–benefit ratio and comparison of post-operative efficacy results between trabeculectomy and canaloplasty

Estimation of risk–benefit ratio and comparison of post-operative efficacy results between trabeculectomy and canaloplasty

PreserFlo™ MicroShunt Versus Ab Externo Canaloplasty in Patients With Moderate to Advanced Open-Angle Glaucoma: 12-Month Follow-Up of a Single-Center Retrospective Study

Operieren wir die Glaukome zu spät?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About