Advertisement

International Ophthalmology

, Volume 39, Issue 10, pp 2341–2351 | Cite as

Comparison of the effect of mitomycin C and bevacizumab–methylcellulose mixture on combined phacoemulsification and non-penetrating deep sclerectomy surgery on the intraocular pressure (a clinical trial study)

  • Ali Mostafaei
  • Nazli TaheriEmail author
  • Morteza Ghojazadeh
  • Atena Latifi
  • Neda Moghaddam
Original Paper
  • 76 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Comparison of the effect of mitomycin C (MMC) versus bevacizumab–methylcellulose mixture (BMM) on combined phacoemulsification and non-penetrating deep sclerectomy surgery on the intraocular pressure in patients with open-angle glaucoma was made.

Methods

The current study is a controlled, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Thirty-eight patients were enrolled, with a total of 40 eyes, and underwent a combined phacoemulsification and non-penetrating deep sclerectomy surgery from 2016 to 2017. MMC with concentration of 0.2 mg/mL for 2 min was used for 20 eyes before separating the scleral flap, and 0.3 mL of BMM (bevacizumab 1.25 mg incorporated into 2% methylcellulose) was injected subconjunctivally following surgery. The success rate of surgery was categorized as complete, relative and failure. Fisher’s exact, Mann–Whitney U and Chi-square tests were employed to data analysis. A p value < 0.05 was supposed significant.

Results

Patients had the same distribution in terms of age, sex, type of glaucoma and type of cataract. Patients were followed up for a mean of 6 months. The mean intraocular pressure before surgery in the MMC group was 24.85 ± 2.83 mmHg with 3.2 ± 0.523 anti-glaucoma drugs, which reached 13.75 ± 3.552 mmHg with 0.15 ± 0.489 anti-glaucoma drugs at the latest visit. The average intraocular pressure before surgery in the BMM group was 24.45 ± 2.48 mmHg with 2.9 ± 0.641 anti-glaucoma drugs, which reached 15.40 ± 3.267 mmHg with 0.25 ± 0.55 anti-glaucoma drug at the last follow-up. The intraocular pressure was notably lower in the MMC group than BMM group 6 months after surgery. There was not a significant difference from the aspect of success rate and failure rate among the two groups at the 6-month follow-up (p = 0.135).

Discussion

Based on the results of this study, MMC and bevacizumab–methylcellulose both seem to be effective in the success of combined phacoemulsification and non-penetrating deep sclerectomy surgery, but MMC decreases intraocular pressure in patients at 6 months post-surgery.

Keywords

Non-penetrating deep sclerectomy Mitomycin C Bevacizumab–methylcellulose mixture Intraocular pressure Phacoemulsification 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Panahibazaz MR, Zamani M, Sharifipoor F et al (2015) Intraoperative mitomycin-C versus bevacizumab on success rate of phacotrabeculectomy. Persian J Med Sci. 1:41–45Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sengupta S, Venkatesh R, Ravindran RD et al (2012) Safety and efficacy of using off-label bevacizumab versus mitomycin C to prevent bleb failure in a single-site phacotrabeculectomy by a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Glaucoma 21:450–459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burr J, Azuara-Blanco A, Avenell A (2005) Medical versus surgical interventions for open angle glaucoma. Chochrane Database Syst Rev 18:CD004399Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anand N, Chunxiao B et al (2015) Deep sclerectomy with bevacizumab and mitomycin C: a comparative study. J Glaucoma 24:25–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Akkan JU, Cilsim S (2015) Role of subconjunctival bevacizumab as an adjuvant to primary trabeculectomy: a prospective randomized comparative 1-year follow-up study. J Glaucoma 24:1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nilforushan N, Yadgari M, Kish SK et al (2012) Subconjunctival bevacizumab versus mitomycin C adjunctive to trabeculectomy. Am J Ophthalmol 153:352–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hitchings RA, Grierson I (1983) Clinico pathological correlation in eyes with failed fistulizing surgery. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK 103(pt 1):84–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Charnock-Jones DS (2005) Vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs), their receptors and their inhibition. Cell Trans 21(1):1–5Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murakami M, Iwai S, Hiratsuka S et al (2006) Signaling of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 tyrosine kinase promotes rheumatoid artritis through activation of monocytes/macrophages. Blood 108:1849–1856PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilgus TA, Ferreira AM, Oberyszyn TM et al (2008) Regulation of scar formation by vascular endothelial growth factor. Lab Invest 88:579–590PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yamamoto T, Varani J, Soong HK et al (1990) Effects of 5-fluorouracil and mitomycin C on cultured rabbit subconjunctival fibroblasts. Ophthalmology 97:1204–1210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Skuta GL, Beeson CC, Higginbotham EJ et al (1992) Intraoperative mitomycin versus postoperative 5-fluorouracil in high risk glaucoma filtering surgery. Ophthalmology 99:438–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kitazawa Y, Kawase K, Matsushita H et al (1991) Trabeculectomy with mitomycin: a comparative study with fluorouracil. Arch Ophthalmol 109:1693–1698PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Singh K, Mehta K, Shaikh NM et al (2000) Trabeculectomy with intraoperative mitomycin C versus 5-fluorouracil. Prospective randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmology 107:2305–2309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    The Fluorouracil Filtering Surgery Study Group (1989) Fluorouracil filtering surgery study one-year follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol 108(625–635):309Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ferrara N, Houck KA, Jakeman LB et al (1991) The vascular endothelial growth factor family of polypeptides. J Cell Biochem 47:211–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bates DO, Jones RP (2003) The role of vascular endothelial growth factor in wound healing. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2:107–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Bergen T, Vandewalle E, Van de Viere S et al (2011) The role of different VEGF isoforms in scar formation after glaucoma filtration surgery. Exp Eye Res 93:689–699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li Z, Van Bergen T, Van de Viere S et al (2009) Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor reduces scar formation after glaucoma filtration surgery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50:5217–5225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stamper RL, Mcmenemy MG, Lieberman MF (1992) Hypotonous maculopathy after trabeculectomy with subconjunctiva 5-fluorouracil. Am J Ophthalmol 114(5):544–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Watson PG, Jakeman C, Ozturk M, Barnett MF, Barnett F, Khaw KT (1990) The complications of trabeculectomy (a 20-year follow-up). Eye 4(Pt 3):425–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lama PJ, Fechtner RD (2003) Antifibrotics and wound healing in glaucoma surgery. Surv Ophthalmol 48(3):314–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wakabayashi T, Oshima Y, Sakaguchi H et al (2008) Intravitreal bevacizumab to treat iris neovascularization and neovascular glaucoma secondary to ischemic retinal diseases in 41 consecutive cases. Ophthalmology 115:1571–1580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Iliev ME, Domig D, Wolf-Schnurrbursch U et al (2006) Intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) in the treatment of neovascular glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 142:1054–1056PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moraczewski AL, Lee RK, Palmberg PF et al (2009) Outcomes of treatment of neovascular glaucoma with intravitreal bevacizumab. Br J Ophthalmol 93:589–593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li Z, Van Bergen T, Van de Viere S et al (2009) Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor reduces scar formation after glaucoma filtration surgery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50:5217–5225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jampel HD, Solus JF, Tracey PA et al (2012) Outcomes and blebrelated complications of trabeculectomy. Ophthalmology 119:712–722PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bindlish R, Condon GP, Schlosser JD et al (2002) Efficacy and safety of mitomycin-C in primary trabeculectomy: five-year follow-up. Ophthalmology 109:1336–1341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mostafaei A, Sedghipour MR, Taghavi Y (2011) Low-dose subconjunctival bevacizumab to augment trabeculectomy for glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol 5:797–800PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Mostafaei
    • 1
  • Nazli Taheri
    • 2
    Email author
  • Morteza Ghojazadeh
    • 1
  • Atena Latifi
    • 2
  • Neda Moghaddam
    • 2
  1. 1.Iran Evidence-Based Medicine Research Center (EBM)Tabriz University of Medical SciencesTabrizIran
  2. 2.Nikookari Eye HospitalTabriz University of Medical SciencesTabrizIran

Personalised recommendations