Transscleral vs endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation: safety and efficacy when combined with phacoemulsification.

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of phacoemulsification combined with endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation (phaco/ECP), phacoemulsification combined with MicroPulse transscleral cyclophotocoagulation (phaco/MP-TSCPC), and phacoemulsification alone (phaco) in the treatment of coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of consecutive cases at Massachusetts Eye & Ear. The main outcome measures were the cumulative probabilities of failure between the phaco/ECP group, phaco/MP-TSCPC group, and the phaco alone group with failure defined as reaching NLP vision at any point postoperatively, undergoing additional glaucoma surgery, or the inability to maintain ≥ 20% IOP reduction from baseline with IOP between 5-18 mmHg while maintaining ≤ baseline medications. Additional outcome measures included changes in average IOP, number of glaucoma medications, and complication rates.

RESULTS

Sixty-four eyes from 64 patients (25 phaco/ECP, 20 phaco/MPTSCPC, 19 phaco alone) were included in this study. The groups did not differ in age (mean 71.04 ± 6.7 years) or length of follow-up time. Baseline IOPs were significantly different between groups (15.78 ± 4.7 mmHg phaco/ECP, 18.37 ± 4.6 mmHg phaco/MP-TSCPC, 14.30 ± 4.2 mmHg phaco alone, p = 0.02). Primary open-angle glaucoma was the most common type of glaucoma in the phaco alone (42%) and phaco/ECP (48%) groups while mixed-mechanism glaucoma was the most common type in the phaco/MP-TSCPC group (40%). Surgical failure was less likely in eyes in the phaco/MP-TSCPC (3.40 times, p = 0.005) and phaco/ECP (1.40 times, p = 0.044) groups compared to phaco alone based on the Kaplan-Meier survival criteria. These differences maintained statistical significance when differences in preoperative IOP were taken into account using the Cox PH model (p = 0.011 and p = 0.004, respectively). Additionally, surgical failure was 1.98 times less likely following phaco/MP-TSCPC compared to phaco/ECP (p = 0.038). This difference only approached significance once differences in preoperative IOP were accounted for (p = 0.052). There was no significant difference in IOP reduction at 1 year between groups. Mean IOP reductions at 1 year were 3.07 ± 5.3 mmHg from a baseline of 15.78 ± 4.7 in the phaco/ECP group, 6.0 ± 4.3 mmHg from a baseline of 18.37 ± 4.6 in the phaco/MP-TSCPC group and 1.0 ± 1.6 from a baseline of 14.30 ± 4.2 mmHg in the phaco alone group. There were no differences in complication rates among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both Phaco/MP-TSCPC and phaco/ECP appear to provide superior efficacy for IOP control when compared to phaco alone. All three procedures had similar safety profiles.