4.6 Article

Excimer laser trabeculotomy vs 180° selective laser trabeculoplasty in primary open-angle glaucoma. A 2-year randomized, controlled trial

期刊

EYE
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 632-638

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2009.172

关键词

glaucoma; selective laser trabeculoplasty; excimer laser trabeculotomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To compare the effectiveness and safety of excimer laser trabeculotomy (ELT) ab interno vs selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) over 24 months of follow-up in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) refractory to medical therapy. Patients and methods This prospective, randomized study included 30 consecutive eyes assigned randomly to either ELT or SLT group. ELT was carried out using a XeCl Excimer Laser with an emission wavelength of 308 nm. Eight spots were equally distributed at a distance of 500 mu m from one another over the anterior trabeculum. The SLT patients were treated with a frequency-doubled q-switched neodymium : yytrium-aluminum-garnet laser (wavelength 532 nm). Approximately 50 adjacent, but not overlapping, laser spots were distributed over 180 degrees of the trabecular meshwork, using an energy level ranging from 0.7 to 1.0 mJ per pulse. The main outcome measure was intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering after ELT and SLT. Success was defined as >= 20% reduction in IOP without further glaucoma intervention. Results At 24 months, complete success rates were 53.3% for the ELT group and 40% for the SLT group (P = 0.35, Fisher's exact test); qualified success rates were 33.3% for the ELT and 26.6% for the SLT group (P = 0.5, Fisher's exact test). Mean IOP decreased from 25.0 +/- 1.9 to 17.6 +/- 2.2 mm Hg (-29.6%; P < 0.0001) in the ELT group and from 23.9 +/- 0.9 to 19.1 +/- 1.8 mm Hg (-21%; P < 0.0001) in the SLT group. Conclusions Both ELT and SLT proved to be effective techniques in the treatment of POAG refractory to medical therapy. Eye (2010) 24, 632-638; doi:10.1038/eye.2009.172; published online 10 July 2009

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

4.6
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