Clinical outcomes of micropulse transscleral cyclophotocoagulation in refractory glaucoma—18 months follow-up

  • Maria Alexandra Preda
  • Olimpiu L. Karancsi
  • Mihnea MunteanuEmail author
  • Horia T. Stanca
Original Article


The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes of micropulse transscleral cyclophotocoagulation (mTSCPC) in cases of refractory glaucoma. Patients with refractory glaucoma were selected to undergo mTSCPC, using the MP3 handpiece from Iridex Laser Systems. Follow-up examinations occurred on a regular basis for 18 months after the procedure. One hundred eyes of 97 patients were treated. Mean pre-laser intraocular pressure (IOP) was 39.14 ± 13.84 mmHg. This was reduced significantly to 22.77.8 ± 10.48 mmHg (41.82% reduction; p < 0.001) at week 1. At months 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 the IOP mean was 23.81 ± 9.44, 24.27 ± 9.17, 23.09 ± 8.47, 22.76 ± 8.14, and 22.77 ± 8.13 mmHg. The success rate at 18 months was the highest 90.91% for the group with IOP below 26 mmHg and the lowest 70.00% for the IOP group 26–30 mmHg. The mean number of anti-glaucoma drops decreased from 2.63 ± 0.87 to 1.78 ± 0.95. The number of treatments performed was 1.26. The pain felt during the procedure was reported as being moderate. No major postoperative complications were noted. Micropulse transscleral cyclophotocoagulation is a non-invasive, repeatable laser procedure that offers both good and stable results in lowering IOP and decreases the use of antiglaucoma medications for up to 18 months.


Micropulse transscleral cyclophotocoagulation Refractory glaucoma Intraocular pressure Diode laser 



The authors would like to thank Marius Ardelean for statistical analyses.

Compliance with ethical standards

The authors have no conflict of interests and received no funding for this work.

The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and in line with the “International Standard of Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP E6 STEP 4).

The study received the local Ethics Committee approval nr. 1/01.06.2016 and was registered on the” Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials”, with the reference number IRCT20170325033136N2.

One of the inclusion criteria for our study was signed informed consent.


  1. 1.
    Kingman S (2004) Glaucoma is second leading cause of blindness globally. Bull World Health Organ 82:887–888PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tham YC, 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. 121:2081–2090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Flaxman SR, Bourne RA, Resnikoff S, Ackland P et al (2017) Global causes of blindness and distance vision impairment 1990–2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health 5(12):1221–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim C, Demetriades AM, Radcliffe NM (2014) One year of glaucoma research in review: 2012 to 2013. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) 3(1):48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M et al (2003) Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol 121:48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weinreb R, Khaw PT (2004) Primary open-angle glaucoma. Lancet. 363:1711–1720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mokbel TH (2011) End stage glaucoma. In: Rumelt S (ed) Glaucoma - basic and clinical concepts. IntechOpen, pp 391–400Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tan AM, Chockalingam M, Aquino MC, Lim ZIL, See JLS, Chew PTK (2010) Micropulse transscleral diode laser cyclophotocoagulation in the treatment of refractory glaucoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 38:266–272PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Toyos MM, Toyos R (2016) Clinical outcomes of micropulsed transcleral cyclophotocoagulation in moderate to severe glaucoma. J Clin Exp Ophthalmol 7(6):1–3Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Preda MA, Popa G, Karancsi OL, Musat O, Popescu SI, Munteanu M, Popa Z (2018) Effectiveness of subconjunctival bevacizumab associated with a laser-based procedure in the treatment of neovascular glaucoma. Farmacia 66(4):621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sanchez FG, Peirano-Bonomi JC, Grippo TM (2018) Micropulse transscleral cyclophotocoagulation: a hypothesis for the ideal parameters. Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol 7(3):94–100PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    R Core Team R (2019) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3–900051–07-0, URL
  13. 13.
    Aquino MC, Barton K, Tan AM, Sng C, Li X, Loon SC, Chew PT (2014) Micropulse versus continuous wave transscleral diode cyclophotocoagulation in refractory glaucoma: a randomized exploratory study. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 43(1):40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Emanuel ME, Grover DS, Fellman RL et al (2017) Micropulse cyclophotocoagulation: initial results in refractory glaucoma. J Glaucoma 26(8):726–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fong AW, Lee GA, O'Rourke P, Thomas R (2011) Management of neovascular glaucoma with transscleral cyclophotocoagulation with diode laser alone versus combination transscleral cyclophotocoagulation with diode laser and intravitreal bevacizumab. Clin Exp Ophthalm 39(4):318–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuchar S, Moster MR, Reamer CB (2016) Treatment outcomes of micropulse transscleral cyclophotocoagulation in advanced glaucoma. Lasers Med Sci 31(2):393–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sarrafpour S, Saleh D, Ayoub S, Radcliffe NM (2019) Micropulse transscleral cyclophotocoagulation a look at long-term effectiveness and outcomes. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 2(3):167–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee JH, Shi Y, Amoozgar B, Aderman C, De Alba CA, Lin S, Han Y (2017) Outcomes of MicroPulse laser TSCPC on pediatric vs adult glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma 26(10):936–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yelenskiy A, Gillette TB, Arosemena A et al (2018) Patient outcomes following micropulse transscleral cyclophotocoagulation: intermediate-term results. J Glaucoma 27(10):920–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Alexandra Preda
    • 1
  • Olimpiu L. Karancsi
    • 2
  • Mihnea Munteanu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Horia T. Stanca
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmology“Victor Babes” University of Medicine and PharmacyTimisoaraRomania
  2. 2.Department of Oral Implantology and Prosthetic Restorations on Implants“Victor Babes” University of Medicine and PharmacyTimisoaraRomania
  3. 3.Department of Ophthalmology“Carol Davila” University of Medicine and PharmacyBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations