Two-Year Clinical Outcomes of Combined Phacoemulsification, Goniosynechialysis, and Excisional Goniotomy For Angle-Closure Glaucoma

25Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose:The aim of this study was to describe changes in intraocular pressure (IOP) and IOP medications after phacoemulsification with Kahook Dual Blade-assisted goniosynechialysis and excisional goniotomy in eyes with angle-closure glaucoma and cataract.Design:Retrospective case series.Methods:Data were collected retrospectively through 24 months of follow-up in 42 eyes of 24 subjects.Results:Preoperative mean (SE) IOP was 25.5 (0.7) mm Hg using a mean of 2.3 (0.1) medications per eye. At month 24, mean IOP had decreased to 13.5 (0.4) mm Hg [a reduction of 12.0 mm Hg (47.1%); P < 0.0001]. Medication use declined to a mean of 0.6 (0.2) medications per eye [a reduction of 1.7 medications per eye (76%); P < 0.0001]. At month 24, 40 of 42 eyes (95.2%) achieved IOP ≤18 mm Hg, 42 of 42 eyes (100%) achieved IOP reduction of ≥20%, 36 of 42 eyes (85.7%) required ≥1 fewer medications for IOP control, and 29 of 42 (69.0%) were medication-free. No eyes required additional glaucoma surgery throughout 24 months of follow-up.Conclusions:Phaco plus Kahook Dual Blade-assisted goniosynechialysis/excisional goniotomy provides statistically and clinically meaningful reductions in both IOP and medications in eyes with angle-closure glaucoma throughout 2 years of follow-up. These findings are consistent with our previously reported outcomes in this cohort at months 6 and 12 postoperatively, demonstrating a significant and sustained benefit of this procedure in eyes with angle-closure glaucoma and cataract.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dorairaj, S., Tam, M. D., & Balasubramani, G. K. (2021). Two-Year Clinical Outcomes of Combined Phacoemulsification, Goniosynechialysis, and Excisional Goniotomy For Angle-Closure Glaucoma. Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology, 10(2), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1097/APO.0000000000000321

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