Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

One-year outcomes of combined phacoemulsification and viscogoniosynechialysis with and without endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation in primary angle-closure glaucoma

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

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the outcomes of combined phacoemulsification and viscogoniosynechialysis (VGSL) with and without endoscopic cyclophtocoagulation (ECP) in primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG).

Methods

In this prospective interventional case series 52 eyes of 50 patients were enrolled. Twenty-seven eyes underwent combined phacoemulsification and VGSL (PV group) and 25 eyes underwent the same procedure plus circumferential ECP (PVE group). All eyes were followed 1 day, 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after the procedure. Intraocular pressure and antiglaucoma medications were compared between and within groups using generalized estimating equations. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was carried out to compare intensity to failure between groups.

Results

The mean ± SD age was 63.23 ± 6.87 years and 50% of the cases were male in the entire group. Intraocular pressure (IOP) and antiglaucoma medications were significantly reduced at all time points in comparison with the baseline in both groups (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between groups in either IOP or medications at specific time points (p > 0.05). One eye in each group developed a fibrinous reaction in the postoperative period. There was no statistically significant difference between groups regarding the intensity to failure (P = 0.169).

Conclusion

There were no significant differences in IOP and medication reduction between groups. Also, the complications were comparable between groups.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng CY (2014) Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 121(11):2081–2090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kreft D, Doblhammer G, Guthoff RF, Frech S (2021) Incidence, individual, and macro level risk factors of severe binocular visual impairment and blindness in persons aged 50 and older. PLoS ONE 16(5):e0251018. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251018

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Sun X, Dai Y, Chen Y et al (2017) Primary angle closure glaucoma: What we know and what we don’t know. Prog Retin Eye Res 57:26–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2016.12.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Foster PJ, Buhrmann R, Quigley HA, Johnson GJ (2002) The definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys. Br J Ophthalmol 86(2):238–242. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.86.2.238

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Wright C, Tawfik MA, Waisbourd M, Katz LJ (2016) Primary angle-closure glaucoma: an update. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 94(3):217–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.12784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ng WT, Morgan W (2012) Mechanisms and treatment of primary angle closure: a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 40(4):e218-228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2011.02604.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. George R, Paul PG, Baskaran M et al (2003) Ocular biometry in occludable angles and angle closure glaucoma: a population based survey. Br J Ophthalmol 87(4):399–402. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.87.4.399

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Moghimi S, Torkashvand A, Mohammadi M et al (2018) Classification of primary angle closure spectrum with hierarchical cluster analysis. PLoS ONE 13(7):e199157. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199157

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Moghimi S, Chen R, Hamzeh N, Khatibi N, Lin SC (2016) Qualitative evaluation of anterior segment in angle closure disease using anterior segment optical coherence tomography. J Curr Ophthalmol 28(4):170–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joco.2016.06.005

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kansara S, Blieden LS, Chuang AZ et al (2016) Effect of laser peripheral iridotomy on anterior chamber angle anatomy in primary angle closure spectrum eyes. J Glaucoma 25(5):e469-474. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000293

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Lai J, Choy BN, Shum JW (2016) Management of primary angle-closure glaucoma. Asia-Pac J Ophthalmol 5(1):59–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Choi JS, Kim YY (2005) Progression of peripheral anterior synechiae after laser iridotomy. Am J Ophthalmol 140(6):1125–1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2005.06.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Azuara-Blanco A, Burr J, Ramsay C et al (2016) Effectiveness of early lens extraction for the treatment of primary angle-closure glaucoma (EAGLE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Lond Engl 388(10052):1389–1397. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30956-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Razeghinejad MR (2008) Combined phacoemulsification and viscogoniosynechialysis in patients with refractory acute angle-closure glaucoma. J Cataract Refract Surg 34(5):827–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.01.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Razeghinejad MR, Rahat F (2010) Combined phacoemulsification and viscogoniosynechialysis in the management of patients with chronic angle closure glaucoma. Int Ophthalmol 30(4):353–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-010-9353-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lim R (2022) The surgical management of glaucoma: a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 50(2):213–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.14028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hansapinyo L, Choy BNK, Lai JSM, Tham CC (2020) Phacoemulsification versus phacotrabeculectomy in primary angle-closure glaucoma with cataract: long-term clinical outcomes. J Glaucoma 29(1):15–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. El Sayed YM, Elhusseiny AM, Albalkini AS, El Sheikh RH, Osman MA (2019) Mitomycin C-augmented phacotrabeculectomy versus phacoemulsification in primary angle-closure glaucoma: a randomized controlled study. J Glaucoma 28(10):911–915. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Senthil S, Rao HL, Choudhari N, Garudadri C (2022) Phacoemulsification versus phacotrabeculectomy in medically controlled primary angle closure glaucoma with cataract in an indian cohort: a randomized controlled trial. Int Ophthalmol 42(1):35–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-01997-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lavia C, Dallorto L, Maule M, Ceccarelli M, Fea AM (2017) Minimally-invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS) for open angle glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 12(8):e183142. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183142

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Siegel MJ, Boling WS, Faridi OS et al (2015) Combined endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation and phacoemulsification versus phacoemulsification alone in the treatment of mild to moderate glaucoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 43(6):531–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.12510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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(8):1313–1321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.06.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hollander DA, Pennesi ME, Alvarado JA (2017) Management of plateau iris syndrome with cataract extraction and endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation. Exp Eye Res 158:190–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2016.07.018

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Saw SM, Gazzard G, Friedman DS (2003) Interventions for angle-closure glaucoma: an evidence-based update. Ophthalmology 110(10):1869–1878. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00540-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Radhakrishnan S, Chen PP, Junk AK, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Chen TC (2018) Laser peripheral iridotomy in primary angle closure: a report by the American academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 125(7):1110–1120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Song BJ, Ramanathan M, Morales E et al (2016) Trabeculectomy and combined phacoemulsification-trabeculectomy: outcomes and risk factors for failure in primary angle closure glaucoma. J Glaucoma 25(9):763–769. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000493

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Tsai HY, Liu CJ, Cheng CY (2009) Combined trabeculectomy and cataract extraction versus trabeculectomy alone in primary angle-closure glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 93(7):943–948. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2008.151803

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang M, Fang M, Bai Y et al (2012) Comparison of combined phacotrabeculectomy with trabeculectomy only in the treatment of primary angle-closure glaucoma. Chin Med J (Engl) 125(8):1429–1433

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ghadamzadeh M, Karimi F, GhasemiMoghaddam S, Daneshvar R (2022) Anterior chamber angle changes in primary angle-closure glaucoma following phacoemulsification versus phacotrabeculectomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Glaucoma 31(3):147–155. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001977

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Morales J, Al Qahtani M, Khandekar R et al (2015) Intraocular pressure following phacoemulsification and endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation for advanced glaucoma: 1-year outcomes. J Glaucoma 24(6):e157-162. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lin MM, Rageh A, Turalba AV et al (2019) Differential efficacy of combined phacoemulsification and endocyclophotocoagulation in open-angle glaucoma versus angle-closure glaucoma. J Glaucoma 28(5):473–480. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Young CEC, Seibold LK, Kahook MY (2020) Cataract surgery and intraocular pressure in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 31(1):15–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000000623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Izquierdo Villavicencio JC, AgudeloArbelaez N, Lastra BR et al (2019) Primary outcomes of patients with chronic angle-closure glaucoma treated with combined phacoemulsification, viscogoniosynechialysis, and endocyclophotocoagulation. J Ophthalmol 2019:6378489. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6378489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Panse K, Le C, Hubbell M, Ayyala RS (2019) Surgical outcomes of phacoemulsification/goniosynechialysis with and without endocyclophotocoagulation in patients with chronic angle closure glaucoma. Indian J Ophthalmol 67(3):366–370. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_895_18

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Lai ISW, Chan NCY, Ling A et al (2021) Combined phacoemulsification-endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation versus phacoemulsification alone in primary angle-closure glaucoma: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 4(6):589–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogla.2021.03.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Francis BA, Pouw A, Jenkins D et al (2016) Endoscopic cycloplasty (ECPL) and lens extraction in the treatment of severe plateau iris syndrome. J Glaucoma 25(3):e128-133. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pathak-Ray V (2019) Intermediate results of phaco-endocycloplasty in an exclusive cohort of angle closure glaucoma: potential for change. Int Ophthalmol 39(10):2257–2265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-018-01062-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Glaucoma Service, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin Square, Tehran, Iran

    Massood Mohammadi, Mostafa Daraby, Yadollah Eslami, Ghasem Fakhraie, Zakieh Vahedian, Mona Safizadeh, Reza Sadeghi & Seyed Mehdi Tabatabaei

  2. Medical School, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Alireza Beikmarzehei

Authors
  1. Massood Mohammadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mostafa Daraby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yadollah Eslami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ghasem Fakhraie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zakieh Vahedian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mona Safizadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Reza Sadeghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alireza Beikmarzehei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Seyed Mehdi Tabatabaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MM and YE designed the study. SMT, MS, ZV, and GF were active in case selection and data registration. AB, MD and RS were the coordinators. SMT wrote the draft which was approved by the contributing authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seyed Mehdi Tabatabaei.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Availability of data and material

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [SMT], upon reasonable request.

Code availability

Not Applicable.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study that involves human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Also, the institutional review board of the Tehran University of Medical Sciences approved the study.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

There is no identifying information about participants available in the article, so this issue is not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mohammadi, M., Daraby, M., Eslami, Y. et al. One-year outcomes of combined phacoemulsification and viscogoniosynechialysis with and without endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation in primary angle-closure glaucoma. Int Ophthalmol 43, 3227–3236 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-023-02723-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-023-02723-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation