4.2 Article

Comparison of the results of Ex-PRESS® surgery for primary open-angle glaucoma between high and low preoperative intraocular pressure

Journal

INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 43, Issue 8, Pages 2803-2809

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-023-02678-2

Keywords

Ex-PRESS; Glaucoma; Low IOP; NTG; POAG; Outcomes

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the surgical outcomes of Ex-PRESS surgery for primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) between low preoperative intraocular pressure (IOP) and high preoperative IOP. The results showed that EXP surgery significantly reduced IOP and was particularly effective for patients with low preoperative IOP.
Purpose To compare surgical outcomes of Ex-PRESS (R) (EXP) surgery for primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) between low preoperative intraocular pressure (IOP) and high preoperative IOP. Methods This was a retrospective non-randomized study. Seventy-nine POAG patients who underwent EXP surgery and were followed for > 3 years were included. Patients with a preoperative IOP of <= 16 mmHg and > 16 mmHg with tolerant glaucoma medications were defined as the low IOP group and the high IOP group, respectively. We compared the surgical outcomes, postoperative IOP and number of glaucoma medications. Success was defined as a postoperative IOP of <= 15 mmHg and a reduction of > 20% from the preoperative IOP to the postoperative IOP. Results EXP surgeries significantly decreased IOPs from 13.2 +/- 2.0 to 9.1 +/- 2.9 mmHg in the low IOP group (p < 0.001), and from 22.5 +/- 4.8 to 12.5 +/- 4.0 mmHg in the high IOP group (p < 0.001). The mean postoperative IOP was significantly low in the low IOP group at 3 years (p = 0.0008). Success rates compared using the Kaplan-Meier survival curve were not significantly different (p = 0.449). Conclusions EXP surgery was useful for POAG patients with a low preoperative IOP.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available