Real-world Surgical Outcomes of Primary Angle-closure Glaucoma

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate surgical outcomes of the four common procedures utilized for primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG).

Methods

A retrospective study of survival rate in surgical management of PACG was conducted in a referral eye center. One hundred and ninety-nine eyes from 173 PACG patients were collected for chart review. The procedures used were phacoemulsification (PE), combined PE with goniosynechialysis (PE-GSL), combined PE with trabeculectomy (PE-Trab), and trabeculectomy alone. Failure was defined as postoperative IOP >21 mmHg in patients who needed second surgical intervention or those who had IOP <5 mmHg with loss of light perception. Cumulative survival rates, risk of surgical failure, and complications were analyzed.

Results

PE, PE-GSL, PE-Trab, and trabeculectomy were performed in 84 eyes (42.2%), 76 eyes (38.2%), 21 eyes (10.6%), and 18 eyes (9%), respectively. Cumulative survival rates at 60 months were 13%, 55%, 42% and 43%, respectively. Cox regression analysis indicated that each mmHg IOP increased, the risk of surgical failure decreased by 13% (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.87; 95%CI: 0.84–0.93, p<0.001).

Conclusion

Real-world surgical outcomes of PACG showed that PE alone had a low survival rate of 13% in 60-month follow-up whereas PE-GSL achieved the highest rate of 55%. PE-GSL should be initially considered for management of PACG, since it can restore and sustain the physiologic aqueous pathway and preserve the conjunctiva for future filtering surgery if needed.

Keywords:

• primary angle-closure glaucoma
• surgical outcome
• combined procedure
• phacoemulsification
• trabeculectomy
• goniosynechialysis
• survival
• Asian
• complication

Precis

Real-world data showed that stand-alone phaco was not as effective as combined phaco-goniosynechialysis in management of PACG, which showed a five-year survival rate of 13% vs 55% respectively.

Acknowledgments

• We would like to thank John Flanagan, MA for language editing and proofreading the manuscript.

• Supported by Rajavithi Research Grant number 112/2558.

Author Contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; took part in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; agreed to submit to the current journal; gave final approval of the version to be published; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Disclosure

The authors reported no conflicts of interest in this work and have no conflict of interest to declare regarding any devices mentioned in the study.