Comparative clinical study of medically controlled nonsevere chronic primary angle-closure glaucoma with coexisting cataract surgically managed by phacoemulsification as against combined phacotrabeculectomy

9Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

PURPOSE: Comparative clinical study of medically controlled non-severe chronic Primary Angle Closure Glaucoma (PACG) with co-existing cataract surgically managed by phacoemulsification as against combined phacotrabeculectomy. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial was conducted between December 2011 and December 2013. Patients were randomly assigned to Phacoemulsification (PE) and Phacotrabeculectomy (PT) groups for surgery. Intraocular pressure, anti-glaucoma medications, Best Corrected Visual Acuity, anterior chamber angle widening and post-operative complications in both groups were compared after 12 months. RESULTS: There were 46 eyes with PACG in PE group and 45 in PT group. The IOP at 12 months in PE group was 11.5±1.3mmHg and 11.8±1.2mmHg in PT gr. (p = 0.28). The eyes requiring single anti-glaucoma medications at 12months in PE group was 0, PT group was 1 (p = 0. 495). The post op BCVA at 12months in PE group 0.3+-0.12 and 0.33±0.15 in PT group (p = 0.22). 3 cases in PT group required additional intervention whereas no additional intervention was required in PE group and this difference was statistically significant (p = 0.116). CONCLUSION: Phacoemulsification is equally effective in terms of intraocular pressure control and visual outcome as phacotrabeculectomy with better safety and less post-operative complication.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chelerkar, V., Parekh, P., Kalyani, V. K. S., Deshpande, C. M., & Khandekar, R. (2018). Comparative clinical study of medically controlled nonsevere chronic primary angle-closure glaucoma with coexisting cataract surgically managed by phacoemulsification as against combined phacotrabeculectomy. Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology, 25(3), 119–125. https://doi.org/10.4103/meajo.MEAJO_204_17

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free