Advertisement

International Ophthalmology

, Volume 39, Issue 12, pp 2741–2748 | Cite as

Corneal biomechanical changes after trabeculectomy with mitomycin C in primary open-angle glaucoma and pseudoexfoliation glaucoma

  • Rana Sorkhabi
  • Farhad NajafzadehEmail author
  • Ali Sadeghi
  • Mohamadhosein Ahoor
  • Ali Mahdavifard
Original Paper
  • 62 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to examine the effect of trabeculectomy with mitomycin C on corneal biomechanical characteristics in PEXG and POAG patients.

Methods

In this prospective comparative case series study, 32 glaucoma patients of whom 17 patients were suffering from PEXG and 15 patients from POAG were enrolled. All patients underwent complete ocular examination, CCT using ultrasound pachymetry and corneal biomechanical study using ORA. The patients were hospitalized, and trabeculectomy surgery with mitomycin was done. Three months after surgery, patients were examined and ORA was obtained again.

Results

The mean CH in patients with PEXG was lower compared to patients with POAG (5.66 ± 1.13, 7.49 ± 0.88, respectively) before surgery, which had a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001). CRF in patients with PEXG was significantly lower compared to patients with POAG (8.19 ± 1.48 vs. 9.35 ± 1.60, respectively) before surgery, with P = 0.049. CH remarkably increased and reached 6.69 ± 0.78 (P < 0.001) in the PEXG group after TBX + MMC surgery. CH increased in the POAG group after TBX + MIC surgery and reached 8.23 ± 1.09, which was statistically significant (P = 0.001). There was a significant relationship between CH and IOPg changes in both PEXG and POAG groups (P < 0.001 and P = 0.01, respectively). Although TBX + MMC surgery changed the amount of CH in PEXG and POAG groups, no significant difference was shown in the parameters between the two groups comparing the CH changes (P = 0.33).

Conclusion

According to the results of this study, the biomechanical characteristics of cornea, particularly CH, shows certain changes following surgery and is increased, reflecting the dynamic nature of these parameters. Our knowledge of the biomechanical changes after glaucoma surgery can help us better understand the pathophysiology of glaucoma diseases and make the right decisions for follow-up of the patients.

Keywords

Ocular response analyzer Corneal biomechanics Glaucoma surgery 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank the education deputy that sponsored us to fulfill the project in the form of thesis research. Our next thanks go to all the patients who cooperated in this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Tabriz University of medical science ethical committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients after giving a full description.

References

  1. 1.
    Ozkok A, Tamcelik N, Ozdamar A, Sarici AM, Cicik E (2013) Corneal viscoelastic differences between pseudoexfoliative glaucoma and primary open-angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma 22(9):740–745PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Congdon NG, Broman AT, Bandeen-Roche K, Grover D, Quigley HA (2006) Central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis associated with glaucoma damage. Am J Ophthalmol 141(5):868–875PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Komaroff E et al (2003) Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol 121(1):48–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mansouri K, Leite MT, Weinreb RN, Tafreshi A, Zangwill LM, Medeiros FA (2012) Association between corneal biomechanical properties and glaucoma severity. Am J Ophthalmol 153(3):419–427 e1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Luce DA (2005) Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg 31(1):156–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murugesan V, Bypareddy R, Kumar M, Tanuj D, Anita P (2014) Evaluation of corneal biomechanical properties following penetrating keratoplasty using ocular response analyzer. Indian J Ophthalmol 62(4):454–460PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ritch R (1994) Exfoliation syndrome-the most common identifiable cause of open-angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma 3(2):176–177Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brooks AM, Gillies WE (1988) The presentation and prognosis of glaucoma in pseudoexfoliation of the lens capsule. Ophthalmology 95(2):271–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Konstas AG, Stewart WC, Stroman GA, Sine CS (1997) Clinical presentation and initial treatment patterns in patients with exfoliation glaucoma versus primary open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers 28(2):111–117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Medeiros FA, Meira-Freitas D, Lisboa R, Kuang TM, Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN (2013) Corneal hysteresis as a risk factor for glaucoma progression: a prospective longitudinal study. Ophthalmology 120(8):1533–1540PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pensyl D, Sullivan-Mee M, Torres-Monte M, Halverson K, Qualls C (2012) Combining corneal hysteresis with central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure for glaucoma risk assessment. Eye 26(10):1349–1356PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beyazyildiz E, Beyazyildiz O, Arifoglu HB, Altintas AK, Koklu SG (2014) Comparison of ocular response analyzer parameters in primary open angle glaucoma and exfoliative glaucoma patients. Indian J Ophthalmol 62(7):782–787PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Deol M, Taylor DA, Radcliffe NM (2015) Corneal hysteresis and its relevance to glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 26(2):96–102PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hjortdal JO (1998) On the biomechanical properties of the cornea with particular reference to refractive surgery. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl 225:1–23Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Song X, Langenbucher A, Gatzioufas Z, Seitz B, El-Husseiny M (2014) Effect of biometric characteristics on the change of biomechanical properties of the human cornea due to cataract surgery. Biomed Res Int 2014:628019PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pakravan M, Afroozifar M, Yazdani S (2014) Corneal biomechanical changes following trabeculectomy, phaco-trabeculectomy, ahmed glaucoma valve implantation and phacoemulsification. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 9(1):7–13PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sun L, Shen M, Wang J, Fang A, Xu A, Fang H, Lu F (2009) Recovery of corneal hysteresis after reduction of intraocular pressure in chronic primary angle-closure glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 147(6):1061–1066 6 e1-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prata TS, Lima VC, Guedes LM, Biteli LG, Teixeira SH, de Moraes CG, Ritch R, Paranhos AJ (2012) Association between corneal biomechanical properties and optic nerve head morphology in newly diagnosed glaucoma patients. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 40(7):682–688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Moraes CV, Hill V, Tello C, Liebmann JM, Ritch R (2012) Lower corneal hysteresis is associated with more rapid glaucomatous visual field progression. Glaucoma 21:209–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anand A, De Moraes CG, Teng CC, Tello C, Liebmann JM, Ritch R (2010) Corneal hysteresis and visual field asymmetry in open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51(12):6514–6518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaushik S, Pandav SS, Banger A, Aggarwal K, Gupta A (2012) Relationship between corneal biomechanical properties, central corneal thickness, and intraocular pressure across the spectrum of glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 153(5):840–849 e2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morita T, Shoji N, Kamiya K, Fujimura F, Shimizu K (2012) Corneal biomechanical properties in normal-tension glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol 90(1):e48–e53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Narayanaswamy A, Su DH, Baskaran M, Tan AC, Nongpiur ME, Htoon HM, Wong TY, Aung T (2011) Comparison of ocular response analyzer parameters in Chinese subjects with primary angle-closure and primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 129(4):429–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sullivan-Mee M, Billingsley SC, Patel AD, Halverson KD, Alldredge BR, Qualls C (2008) Ocular response analyzer in subjects with and without glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci 85(6):463–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bechmann M, Thiel MJ, Roesen B, Ullrich S, Ulbig MW, Ludwig K (2000) Central corneal thickness determined with optical coherence tomography in various types of glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 84(11):1233–1237PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ventura AC, Bohnke M, Mojon DS (2001) Central corneal thickness measurements in patients with normal tension glaucoma, primary open angle glaucoma, pseudoexfoliation glaucoma, or ocular hypertension. Br J Ophthalmol 85(7):792–795PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Aihara M, Weinreb RN (2003) Corneal thickness as a risk factor for visual field loss in patients with preperimetric glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Am J Ophthalmol 136(5):805–813PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wells AP, Garway-Heath DF, Poostchi A, Wong T, Chan KC, Sachdev N (2008) Corneal hysteresis but not corneal thickness correlates with optic nerve surface compliance in glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49(8):3262–3268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bolivar G, Sanchez-Barahona C, Teus M, Castejon MA, Paz Moreno-Arrones J, Gutierrez-Ortiz C, Mikropoulos DG (2017) Effect of topical prostaglandin analogues on corneal hysteresis: author’s reply. Acta Ophthalmol 95(2):e152.  https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.12791 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rana Sorkhabi
    • 1
  • Farhad Najafzadeh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ali Sadeghi
    • 2
  • Mohamadhosein Ahoor
    • 1
  • Ali Mahdavifard
    • 1
  1. 1.Nikookari Hospital (Eye Center)Tabriz University of Medical SciencesTabrizIran
  2. 2.Eye Research Center, Rassoul Akram HospitalIran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran

Personalised recommendations