Comparative efficacy and safety of micropulse transscleral laser cyclophotocoagulation using different duration protocols in eyes with good visual acuity.
AI Summary
This study found 240s micropulse transscleral laser cyclophotocoagulation (MP-TSCPC) more effective than 160s for refractory glaucoma with good vision, suggesting longer duration improves initial IOP control.
Abstract
Purpose
To compare the success rates and safety of micropulse transscleral laser cyclophotocoagulation (MP-TSCPC) for the treatment of refractory glaucoma using the 240-s and 160-s duration protocols in eyes with good visual acuity.
Methods
A retrospective analysis of patients with refractory glaucoma who underwent MP-TSCPC from December 2017 to September 2019 with baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of ≥ 20/60. Laser treatments for the moderate and short duration protocols were defined as 240 s and 160 s with settings of 2000 mW/Cm2 and a duty cycle of 31.3%. Follow-up examinations were performed regularly until 12 months after the procedure.
Results
Seventy-six eyes of 76 patients were included with BCVA ranging from 20/60 to 20/20. Forty-four eyes were treated with 240 s and 32 eyes were treated with 160-s duration protocols. There was no significant reduction in mean logMAR BCVA and visual field parameters from baseline at any follow-up point in both groups. Visual acuity remained unchanged or improved in 39 of 44 patients (88.6%) in 240-s group and in 28 of 32 patients (87.5%) in 160-s group. Seven of 44 eyes (15.9%) in 240-s group and 12 of 32 eyes (37.5%) in 160-s group required re-treatment for adequate IOP control. After the re-treatments, both protocols showed similar success rates of 79.5% in 240-s group and 75% in 160-s group at 12 months, respectively (p > 0.05).
Conclusions
MP-TSCPC can be offered as a primary surgical treatment for the management of refractory glaucoma in patients with good visual acuity. Considering the high re-treatment rates in 160-s group, the 240-s duration protocol appears to be more effective than 160-s protocol for adequate IOP control.
MeSH Terms
Shields Classification
Key Concepts5
Micropulse transscleral laser cyclophotocoagulation (MP-TSCPC) can be offered as a primary surgical treatment for the management of refractory glaucoma in patients with good visual acuity.
The 240-s duration protocol for micropulse transscleral laser cyclophotocoagulation (MP-TSCPC) appears to be more effective than the 160-s protocol for adequate intraocular pressure control in patients with refractory glaucoma, considering the high re-treatment rates in the 160-s group.
Visual acuity remained unchanged or improved in 39 of 44 patients (88.6%) in the 240-s group and in 28 of 32 patients (87.5%) in the 160-s group after micropulse transscleral laser cyclophotocoagulation (MP-TSCPC) for refractory glaucoma.
After re-treatments, both the 240-s and 160-s duration protocols for micropulse transscleral laser cyclophotocoagulation (MP-TSCPC) showed similar success rates of 79.5% in the 240-s group and 75% in the 160-s group at 12 months (p > 0.05) for refractory glaucoma.
Seven of 44 eyes (15.9%) in the 240-s group and 12 of 32 eyes (37.5%) in the 160-s group required re-treatment for adequate intraocular pressure control after micropulse transscleral laser cyclophotocoagulation (MP-TSCPC) for refractory glaucoma.
Related Articles5
MP3 Plus: A Modified Micropulse Transscleral Cyclophototherapy Technique for the Treatment of Refractory Glaucoma.
Case SeriesEfficacy and safety of transscleral cyclophotocoagulation in Swedish glaucoma patients.
Cohort StudyEfficacy and safety of transscleral cyclophotocoagulation versus cyclocryotherapy in the treatment of intractable glaucoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Systematic ReviewEndoscopic Cyclophotocoagulation and Pars Plana Ablation (ECP-plus) to Treat Refractory Glaucoma.
Case SeriesMicropulse Transscleral Laser Treatment Versus Continuous Wave Transscleral Cyclophotocoagulation for the Treatment of Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis.
Meta-AnalysisIs this article assigned to the wrong chapter(s)? Let us know.