4.1 Article

Outcome of Micropulse Laser Transscleral Cyclophotocoagulation on Pediatric Versus Adult Glaucoma Patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA
卷 26, 期 10, 页码 936-939

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000757

关键词

pediatric; transscleral; micropulse laser; minimally invasive

资金

  1. Research to Prevent Blindness
  2. National Eye Institute [EY00216]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To study and compare the outcome of micropulse transscelral cyclophotocoagulation in pediatric glaucoma patients to that in adult glaucoma patients. Methods: Consecutive pediatric and adult patients who received micropulse transscelral cyclophotocoagulation between July 2015 and December 2016 at University of California, San Francisco were retrospectively analyzed. All cases had at least 12 months of follow-up. Results: Nine eyes from 9 pediatric patients and 27 eyes from 25 adult patients were included. The sample size in pediatric group is small because MP-TCP was not offered to pediatric patients after unsatisfactory results in initial cases. Preoperatively, the mean intraocular pressure (IOP) was 28.41 +/- 8.32mmHg in adult patients and 34.28 +/- 9.92mmHg in pediatric patients. Postoperatively, the mean IOP in adult patients significantly decreased at all follow-up points (P<0.001). In pediatric patients, the mean IOP decreased to 20.44 +/- 13.41mmHg at 1 month (P=0.021), 23.56 +/- 10.10mmHg at 3 months (P=0.093), 23.00 +/- 8.31mmHg (P=0.018) at 6 months, and 27.20 +/- 15.68mmHg (P=0.15) at 12 months. No significant complications were noted in either group. The success rate in adults was 72.22% versus 22.22% in pediatric patients at 12 months (P=0.02). Seven of 9 pediatric patients required reoperation during the 12 months of follow-up. Conclusions: Micropulse transscelral cyclophotocoagulation is a safe procedure for pediatric as well as adult glaucoma patients. Its effect seems to be short lived in pediatric patients and the rate of reoperation was high.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据