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

Abstract

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.