3.9 Article

A retrospective analysis of intraocular pressure changes after cataract surgery with the use of prednisolone acetate 1% versus difluprednate 0.05%

期刊

CLINICAL OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 2329-2336

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S121849

关键词

intraocular pressure; cataract surgery; steroid responder; glaucoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To compare the effect of topical prednisolone acetate 1% (PA) used after routine cataract surgery to the effect of difluprednate 0.05% (DFBA) used for the same indication on intraocular pressure (IOP). Methods: An electronic query was created to gather information from all cataract surgeries between January 2010 and January 2015 within the electronic health record database at Barnet Dulaney Perkins, a multicenter, multiphysician private practice in Phoenix, Arizona. Information collected included age, sex, diabetes status, glaucoma history, medication regimen (use of PA or DFBA), and IOP before surgery, 5-10 days postoperatively (TP1) and 3-6 weeks postoperatively (TP2). Postoperative IOP measurements were compared to baseline IOP measurement in each patient. Results: Regardless of steroid used, all patients in this study experienced an increase in IOP within TP1 and returned to baseline IOP (+/- 2.0 mmHg) by TP2. Patients who received DFBA showed a statistically significant increase in IOP at TP1 compared to those on PA (P<0.001) with the mean IOP an average 0.60 mmHg higher (95% CI = 0.3, 0.9). The odds ratio of a clinically significantly increased IOP at TP1 (defined as overall IOP >= 21 mmHg and an increase of >= 10 mmHg) in DFBA-treated patients was 1.84 (95% CI = 1.4, 2.6). In patients treated with PA, 3% reached a significantly increased IOP, compared to 4.4% of patients in the DFBA group (P<0.05). Risk factors for increased IOP were identified, and include advanced age (>75) (P<0.005) and a history of glaucoma (P<0.001). Conclusion: In postoperative cataract patients, use of DFBA increased the risk of a clinically significant IOP increase.

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

3.9
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