4.4 Review

Is laser trabeculoplasty the new star in glaucoma treatment?

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages 141-147

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000732

Keywords

argon laser trabeculoplasty; glaucoma; glaucoma therapy; laser trabeculoplasty; selective laser trabeculoplasty

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In recent years, studies on selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) have shown success rates ranging from 18% to 88%, but the variability in study designs makes direct comparisons difficult. The LiGHT trial demonstrated the efficacy of SLT, with 75% of eyes achieving target pressure without drops and 58% achieving it after a single SLT. SLT has proven to effectively lower intraocular pressure (IOP) with satisfactory success rates even after a single treatment, and its efficacy is repeatable regardless of patient adherence.
Purpose of review For decades, laser trabeculoplasty has been a well-proven therapeutic option in glaucoma management, and more recently, it has only gained in popularity. One reason for such popularity is that selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) is a therapy independent of patient adherence, which is typically low among glaucoma patients. Consequently, the number of studies on SLT has multiplied throughout the past years. This review provides an overview of studies on SLT from the last 12 months. Recent findings The studies on treatment outcome show a wide range of success rates of SLT reaching between 18 and 88%; however, study designs differ and many studies are not directly comparable. The prospective laser trabeculoplasty for open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension (LiGHT) trial has demonstrated good efficacy of SLT - 75% of the eyes achieved their target pressure without drops and 58% after a single SLT. SLT has proven to be effective in lowering IOP with satisfactory success rates even after single SLT. SLT is repeatable independent of patient's adherence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available