Rolim-de-Moura Christiane, Esporcatte Bruno L B, F Netto Camila, Paranhos Augusto
Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2020 Jun;83(3):215-224. doi: 10.5935/0004-2749.20200060. Epub 2020 May 29.
Our initial goal was to compare the efficacy and safety of a glaucoma drainage device and trabeculectomy for children with primary congenital glaucoma after angular surgery failure. However, we discontinued the study due to the rate of complications and wrote this report to describe the results obtained with the two techniques in this particular group.
This was a parallel, non-masked, controlled trial that included patients aged 0-13 years who had undergone previous trabeculotomy or goniotomy and presented inadequately controlled glaucoma with an intraocular pressure ≥21 mmHg on maximum tolerated medical therapy. We randomized the patients to undergo either placement of a 250-mm2 Baerveldt glaucoma implant or mitomycin-augmented trabeculectomy. The main outcome measure was intraocular pressure control. We calculated complete success (without hypotensive ocular medication) and qualified success (with medication) rates. We defined failure as uncontrolled intraocular pressure, presence of serious complications, abnormal increase in ocular dimensions, or confirmed visual acuity decrease.
We studied 13 eyes of 13 children (five in the glaucoma drainage device group; eight in the trabeculectomy group). Both surgical procedures produced a significant intraocular pressure reduction 12 months after intervention from the baseline (tube group, 22.8 ± 5.9 mmHg to 12.20 ± 4.14 mmHg, p=0.0113; trabeculectomy group, 23.7 ± 7.3 mmHg to 15.6 ± 5.9 mmHg, p=0.0297). None of the patients in the tube group and 37.5% of those in the trabeculectomy group achieved complete success in intraocular pressure control after 12 months of follow-up (p=0.928, Chi-square test). Two patients (40%) had serious complications at the time of tube aperture (implant extrusion, retinal detachment).
Both the tube and trabeculectomy groups presented similar intraocular pressure controls, but complete success was more frequent in the trabeculectomy group. Non-valved glaucoma drainage devices caused potentially blinding complications during tube opening. Because of the small sample size, we could not draw conclusions as to the safety data of the studied technique.
我们最初的目标是比较青光眼引流装置和小梁切除术对原发性先天性青光眼患儿在房角手术失败后的疗效和安全性。然而,由于并发症发生率,我们终止了该研究,并撰写本报告以描述这两种技术在这一特定群体中所获得的结果。
这是一项平行、非盲法、对照试验,纳入年龄在0至13岁之间、先前接受过小梁切开术或房角切开术且在最大耐受药物治疗下眼压≥21 mmHg、青光眼控制不佳的患者。我们将患者随机分为接受250平方毫米的Baerveldt青光眼植入物植入或丝裂霉素辅助小梁切除术。主要结局指标是眼压控制。我们计算了完全成功(无需降压眼药)和合格成功(使用药物)率。我们将失败定义为眼压未控制、出现严重并发症、眼尺寸异常增加或确诊视力下降。
我们研究了13名儿童的13只眼(青光眼引流装置组5只眼;小梁切除术组8只眼)。两种手术干预后12个月时眼压均较基线显著降低(引流管组,从22.8±5.9 mmHg降至12.20±4.14 mmHg,p = 0.0113;小梁切除术组,从23.7±7.3 mmHg降至15.6±5.9 mmHg,p = 0.0297)。随访12个月后,引流管组无一例患者眼压控制完全成功,小梁切除术组37.5%的患者眼压控制完全成功(p = 0.928,卡方检验)。两名患者(40%)在引流管开口时出现严重并发症(植入物挤出、视网膜脱离)。
引流管组和小梁切除术组眼压控制情况相似,但小梁切除术组完全成功更为常见。无瓣膜青光眼引流装置在引流管开口时导致潜在致盲并发症。由于样本量小,我们无法就所研究技术的安全性数据得出结论。