Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Anterior versus posterior endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation: comparison of indications, populations, and outcomes

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To examine how indications, patient characteristics, and outcomes differ between anterior and posterior approaches of endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation (ECP) in the treatment of glaucoma.

Methods

This is a retrospective chart review of 9 anterior and 20 posterior ECP cases (n = 29).

Results

Posterior ECP cases were typically associated with a dramatic increase in intraocular pressure (IOP), whereas the anterior ECP was associated with chronically elevated pressures. The initial IOPs in mm Hg of posterior ECP cases (26.8 non-NVG; 35.2 NVG) were much greater than anterior ECP cases (17.8), and a greater overall reduction in IOP was observed in the posterior versus anterior ECP cases (10.3 posterior non-NVG; 21.3 posterior NVG; 3.6 anterior, P < .001). With procedural success defined as 6-month post-operative IOP falling within normal ranges and a decrease in either IOP or number of prescribed glaucoma medications, the success rate of ECP was 92% for posterior NVG, 89% for anterior and 75% for posterior non-NVG cases (P = .34), similar to the previous literature. Of the four unsuccessful cases, two resulted in a normal IOP but lacked a drop in pressure or reduction in medication burden, one resulted in a 6-point drop in IOP but remained at 23 mm Hg, and one resulted in phthisis bulbi (3%) from an initial pressure above 40 mm Hg.

Conclusion

Endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation is an effective and safe procedure for severe glaucoma cases from both an anterior and posterior approach. Ophthalmologists should consider this procedure as part of their glaucoma treatment arsenal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. Tham Y-C, Li X, Wong TY et al (2014) Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 121:2081–2090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chang EE, Goldberg JL (2012) Glaucoma 2.0: neuroprotection, neuroregeneration, neuroenhancement. Ophthalmology 119:979–986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.11.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tatham AJ, Weinreb RN, Medeiros FA (2014) Strategies for improving early detection of glaucoma: the combined structure–function index. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ 8:611–621. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S44586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Li T, Lindsley K, Rouse B et al (2016) Comparative effectiveness of first-line medications for primary open-angle glaucoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 123:129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.09.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. CNTGS Group (1998) Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal-tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures. Am J Ophthalmol 126:487–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9394(98)00223-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gedde SJ, Feuer WJ, Shi W et al (2018) Treatment outcomes in the primary tube versus trabeculectomy study after 1 year of follow-up. Ophthalmology 125:650–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.02.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Richter GM, Coleman AL (2016) Minimally invasive glaucoma surgery: current status and future prospects. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ 10:189–206. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S80490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lin S (2002) Endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation. Br J Ophthalmol 86:1434–1438. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.86.12.1434

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Solano MM, Huang G, Lin SC (2017) When should we give up filtration surgery: indications, techniques and results of cyclodestruction. Glaucoma Surg 59:179–190. https://doi.org/10.1159/000458496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lin SC (2008) Endoscopic and transscleral cyclophotocoagulation for the treatment of refractory glaucoma. J Glaucoma 17:238–247. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0b013e31815f2539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Clement CI, Kampougeris G, Ahmed F et al (2013) Combining phacoemulsification with endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation to manage cataract and glaucoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 41:546–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.12051

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Francis BA, Berke SJ, Dustin L, Noecker R (2014) Endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation combined with phacoemulsification versus phacoemulsification alone in medically controlled glaucoma. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:1313–1321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.06.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Marra KV, Wagley S, Omar A et al (2015) Case-matched comparison of vitrectomy, peripheral retinal endolaser, and endocyclophotocoagulation versus standard care in neovascular glaucoma. Retina Phila Pa 35:1072–1083. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000000449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Marra KV, Yonekawa Y, Papakostas TD, Arroyo JG (2013) Indications and techniques of endoscope assisted vitrectomy. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 8:282

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Tan JCH, Francis BA, Noecker R et al (2016) Endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation and pars plana ablation (ECP-plus) to treat refractory glaucoma. J Glaucoma 25:e117-122. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Feinstein MA, Lee JH, Amoozgar B, et al (2019) Comparison between pars plana and anterior endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation for the treatment of glaucoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.13501

  17. Kahook MY, Lathrop KL, Noecker RJ (2007) One-site versus two-site endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation. J Glaucoma 16:527–530. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0b013e3180575215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lindfield D, Ritchie RW, Griffiths MF (2012) “Phaco-ECP”: combined endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation and cataract surgery to augment medical control of glaucoma. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000578

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

BS was involved in conception, design, and data acquisition, analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. MS was involved in design and data acquisition, analyzed the data, and revised the manuscript. CAL analyzed the data and revised the manuscript. JGA was involved in supervision and conception and revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorge G. Arroyo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All research activities adhered to the guidelines set by the Declaration of Helsinki and this protocol received approval from the BIDMC IRB.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seto, B., Singh, M.K., Lemire, C.A. et al. Anterior versus posterior endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation: comparison of indications, populations, and outcomes. Int Ophthalmol 41, 3021–3028 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-01863-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-01863-5

Keywords

Navigation