International Ophthalmology

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 2005–2012 | Cite as

Evaluation of the learning curve of non-penetrating glaucoma surgery

  • Fatih Aslan
  • Berna Yuce
  • Zafer OztasEmail author
  • Halil Ates
Original Paper



To evaluate the learning curve of non-penetrating glaucoma surgery (NPGS).


The study included 32 eyes of 27 patients’ (20 male and 7 female) with medically uncontrolled glaucoma. Non-penetrating glaucoma surgeries performed by trainees under control of an experienced surgeon between 2005 and 2007 at our tertiary referral hospital were evaluated. Residents were separated into two groups. Humanistic training model applied to the one in the first group, he studied with experimental models before performing NPGS. Two residents in the second group performed NPGS after a conventional training model. Surgeries of the residents were recorded on video and intraoperative parameters were scored by the experienced surgeon at the end of the study. Postoperative intraocular pressure, absolute and total success rates were analyzed.


In the first group 19 eyes of 16 patients and in the second group 13 eyes of 11 patients had been operated by residents. Intraoperative parameters and complication rates were not statistically significant between groups (p > 0.05, Chi-square). The duration of surgery was 32.7 ± 5.6 min in the first group and 45 ± 3.8 min in the second group. The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001, Student’s t test). Absolute and total success was 68.8 and 93.8% in the first group and 62.5 and 87.5% in the second group, respectively. The difference was not statistically significant.


Humanistic and conventional training models under control of an experienced surgeon are safe and effective for senior residents who manage phacoemulsification surgery in routine cataract cases. Senior residents can practice these surgical techniques with reasonable complication rates.


Deep sclerectomy Non-penetrating glaucoma surgery Learning curve Training model Viscocanalostomy 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

All authors have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Bettin P, Di Matteo F (2013) Glaucoma: present and future trends. Ophthalmic Res 50:197–208CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheng JW, Cheng SW, Cai JP, Li Y, Wei RL (2011) Systematic overview of the efficacy of nonpenetrating glaucoma surgery in the treatment of open angle glaucoma. Med Sci Monit 17:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Welsh NH, DeLange J, Wasserman P, Ziémba SL (1998) The “deroofing” of Schlemm’s canal in patients with open-angle glaucoma through placement of a collagen drainage device. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers 29:216–226PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mermoud A, Schnyder CC, Sickenberg M, Chiou AG, Hédiguer SE, Faggioni R (1999) Comparison of deep sclerectomy with collagen implant and trabeculectomy in open-angle glaucoma. J Cataract Refract Surg 25:323–331CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sanchez E, Schnyder CC, Mermoud A (1997) Comparative results of deep sclerectomy transformed to trabeculectomy and classical trabeculectomy. Klin Mon Augenheilkd 210:261–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gedde SJ, Vinod K (2016) Resident surgical training in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 27:151–157CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gibson A, Boulton MG, Watson MP, Moseley MJ, Murray PI, Fielder AR (2005) The first cut is the deepest: basic surgical training in ophthalmology. Eye 19:1264–1270CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen MN, Intili A, Ni N, Blecher MH (2015) Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery in residency training. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 26(1):56–60CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dooley IJ, O’Brien PD (2006) Subjective difficulty of each stage of phacoemulsification cataract surgery performed by basic surgical trainees. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:604–608CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Corey RP, Olson RJ (1998) Surgical outcomes of cataract extractions performed by residents using phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 24:66–72CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zimmer DV, Harrison JC, Carriere VM (1994) Cataract extraction with lens implantation at Biloxi Veterans Affairs Medical Center: experience of ophthalmology residents. Ann Ophthalmol 26:47–49PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cruz OA, Wallace GW, Gay CA, Matoba AY, Koch DD (1992) Visual results and complications of phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation performed by ophthalmology residents. Ophthalmology 99:448–452CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pingree MF, Crandall AS, Olson RJ (1999) Cataract surgery complications in 1 year at an academic institution. J Cataract Refract Surg 25:705–708CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gimbel HV, Sun R, Ferensowicz M, Anderson Penno E, Kamal A (2001) Intraoperative management of posterior capsule tears in phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation. Ophthalmology 108:2186–2189CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ang GS, Whyte IF (2006) Effect and outcomes of posterior capsule rupture in a district general hospital setting. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:623–627CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Torres-Suarez E, Rebolleda G, Munoz Negrete FJ, Cabarga C, Rivas L (2007) Influence of deep scleral flap size on intraocular pressure after deep sclerectomy. Eur J Ophthalmol 17:350–356CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sourdille P (1999) Nonpenetrating trabecular surgery: it’s worth the change. J Cataract Refract Surg 25:298–300CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Detry-Morel M, Detry MB (2006) Five-year experience with non penetrating deep sclerectomy. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol 299:83–94Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dahan E, Drusedau MU (2000) Nonpenetrating filtration surgery for glaucoma: control by surgery only. J Cataract Refract Surg 26:695–701CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Drolsum L (2003) Conversion from trabeculectomy to deep sclerectomy: prospective study of the first 44 cases. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:1378–1384CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bas JM, Goethals MJ (1999) Non-penetrating deep sclerectomy preliminary results. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol 272:55–59PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lüke C, Dietlein TS, Jacobi PC, Konen W, Krieglstein GK (2003) A prospective randomised trial of viscocanalostomy with and without implantation of a reticulated hyaluronic acid implant (SKGEL) in open angle glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 87:599–603CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gandolfi S, Shaarawy T, Carassa R (2003) Failed non-penetrating surgery. J Glaucoma 12:441–444CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ambresin A, Shaarawy T, Mermoud A (2002) Deep sclerectomy with collagen implant in one eye compared with trabeculectomy in the other eye of the same patient. J Glaucoma 11:214–220CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cillino S, Di Pace F, Casuccio A, Calvaruso L, Morreale D, Vadalà M, Lodato G (2004) Deep sclerectomy versus punch trabeculectomy with and without phacoemulsification: a randomised clinical trial. J Glaucoma 13:500–506CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chiselita D (2001) Nonpenetrating deep sclerectomy versus trabeculectomy in primary open-angle glaucoma surgery. Eye 15:197–201CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Suominen SM, Harju MP, Vesti ET (2016) Deep sclerectomy in primary open-angle glaucoma and exfoliative glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol 26:568–574CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rękas M, Byszewska A, Petz K, Wierzbowska J, Jünemann A (2015) Canaloplasty versus non-penetrating deep sclerectomy—a prospective, randomised study of the safety and efficacy of combined cataract and glaucoma surgery; 12-month follow-up. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 253:591–599CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bilgin G, Karakurt A, Saricaoglu MS (2014) Combined non-penetrating deep sclerectomy with phacoemulsification versus non-penetrating deep sclerectomy alone. Semin Ophthalmol 29:146–150CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gesser C, Wiermann A, Keserü M, Richard G, Klemm M (2014) Long-term follow-up after deep sclerectomy. Klin Mon Augenheilkd 231:535–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Suominen S, Harju M, Kurvinen L, Vesti E (2014) Deep sclerectomy in normal-tension glaucoma with and without mitomycin-C. Acta Ophthalmol 92:701–706CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Roy S, Mermoud A (2012) Deep sclerectomy. Dev Ophthalmol 50:29–36CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Anand N, Kumar A, Gupta A (2011) Primary phakic deep sclerectomy augmented with mitomycin C: long-term outcomes. J Glaucoma 20:21–27CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ateş H, Uretmen O, Andaç K, Azarsiz SS (2003) Deep sclerectomy with a nonabsorbable implant (T-Flux): preliminary results. Can J Ophthalmol 38:482–488CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of MedicineEge UniversityIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations