Effect of Phacoemulsification Subtype on the Efficacy of Previously Performed Glaucoma Surgery
https://doi.org/10.18008/1816-5095-2025-1-69-73
Abstract
Purpose: to compare the efficacy of existing glaucoma surgery after phacoemulsification (PE) and femtosecond PE (femtoPE).
Patients and methods. Study included 30 patients (30 eyes) who have undergone a non-penetrative glaucoma surgery with Burrato II cataract. Patients were evenly distributed to the PE and femtoPE groups. Cataract surgery was performed from 3 months to 1 year after glaucoma surgery. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was evaluated before surgery, on week 1, months 1, 3, and 6.
Results. Baseline IOP was comparable in both groups: 17,5 ± 1,3 mmHg in a PE group and 17,9 ± 1,5 mmHg in a femtoPE group. In a PE group a statistically significant IOP increase happened on week 1 and month 1, in a femtoPE group it happened only on week 1. In comparison to the femtoPE group, the PE group was associated with bigger IOP increase after 1 week and 1 month (week 1: 17,0 ± 3,6 and 13,2 ± 1,9 mmHg, respectively; month 1: 13,5 ± 2,2 and 13,0 ± 0,7 mmHg, respectively). In months 3 and 6, there was no intergroup difference (12,2 ± 2,1 and 12,5 ± 1,6 mmHg, respectively; 13,3 ± 1,0 and 12,1 ± 1,8 mmHg, respectively). In all follow-up terms amount of hypotensive eyedrops was bigger in the PE group.
Conclusion. FemtoPE is safer than PE in eyes with previous glaucoma surgery. Such eyes are more likely to require hypotensive therapy after PE, rather than after femtoPE, for IOP compensation.
About the Authors
N. Yu. Yusef
M.M. Krasnov Research Institute of Eye Diseases
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Yusef Naim Yu., MD, Professor, director
Rossolimo str., 11A,B, Moscow, 119021
G. V. Voronin
M.M. Krasnov Research Institute of Eye Diseases
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Voronin Grigory V., MD, Professor, leading researcher of the Optical media eye pathology department
Rossolimo str., 11A,B, Moscow, 119021
M. K. Bersunkaev
M.M. Krasnov Research Institute of Eye Diseases
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Bersunkaev Mansur K., postgraduate
Rossolimo str., 11A,B, Moscow, 119021
A. V. Volzhanin
M.M. Krasnov Research Institute of Eye Diseases
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Volzhanin Andrey V., researcher of the Glaucoma department
Rossolimo str., 11A,B, Moscow, 119021
References
1. GBD 2019 Blindness and Vision Impairment Collaborators. Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the Right to Sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(2):e144–e160. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30489-7.
2. Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng CY. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 2014;121(11):2081–2090. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013.
3. Day AC, Gore DM, Bunce C, Evans JR. Laser-assisted cataract surgery versus standard ultrasound phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;7(7):CD010735. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010735.pub2.
4. Kelman CD. Phaco-emulsification and aspiration. A new technique of cataract removal. A preliminary report. Am J Ophthalmol. 1967;64(1):23–35.
5. Nagy Z, Takacs A, Filkorn T, Sarayba M. Initial clinical evaluation of an intraocular femtosecond laser in cataract surgery. J Refract Surg. 2009;25(12):1053–1060. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20091117-04.
6. Schumacher S, Fromm M, Oberheide U, Gerten G, Wegener A, Lubatschowski H. In vivo application and imaging of intralenticular femtosecond laser pulses for the restoration of accommodation. J Refract Surg. 2008;24(9):991–995. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20081101-24.
7. Qian DW, Guo HK, Jin SL, Zhang HY, Li YC. Femtosecond laser capsulotomy versus manual capsulotomy: a Meta-analysis. Int J Ophthalmol. 2016;9(3):453–458. doi: 10.18240/ijo.2016.03.23.
8. Chen X, Xiao W, Ye S, Chen W, Liu Y. Efficacy and safety of femtosecond laserassisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification for cataract: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sci Rep. 2015;5:13123. doi: 10.1038/srep13123.
9. Popovic M, Campos-Möller X, Schlenker MB, Ahmed II. Efficacy and Safety of Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery Compared with Manual Cataract Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of 14 567 Eyes. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(10):2113–2126. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.07.005.
10. Avetisov SÉ, Erichev VP, Petrov SIu, Volzhanin AV. Influence of cataract phacoemulsification on eye hydrodynamics in patients with prior trabeculectomy. Vestnik Oftalmologii. 2018;134(5):99–103 (In Russ.). doi: 10.17116/oftalma201813405199.
11. Patel HY, Danesh-Meyer HV. Incidence and management of cataract after glaucoma surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2013;24(1):15–20. doi: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e32835ab55f.
12. Vass C, Menapace R. Surgical strategies in patients with combined cataract and glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2004;15(1):61–66. doi: 10.1097/00055735-200402000-00012.
13. Mathew RG, Murdoch IE. The silent enemy: a review of cataract in relation to glaucoma and trabeculectomy surgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95(10):1350–1354. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2010.194811.
14. Purohit M, Mohite AA, Sung VCT. Glaucoma control after phacoemulsification in eyes with functioning glaucoma filtration surgeries: trabeculectomies versus glaucoma drainage devices. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022;260(11):3597–3605. doi: 10.1007/s00417-022-05680-z.
15. Chee SP, Ti SE, Sivakumar M, Tan DT. Postoperative inflammation: extracapsular cataract extraction versus phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;25(9):1280–1285. doi: 10.1016/s0886-3350(99)00161-3.
16. Chiseliţă D, Antohi I, Medvichi R, Danielescu C. The influence of cataract surgery on the efficacy of trabeculectomy in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Oftalmologia. 2004;48(2):71–80.
Review
For citations:
Yusef N.Yu., Voronin G.V., Bersunkaev M.K., Volzhanin A.V. Effect of Phacoemulsification Subtype on the Efficacy of Previously Performed Glaucoma Surgery. Ophthalmology in Russia. 2025;22(1):69-73. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18008/1816-5095-2025-1-69-73
Views:
146
Email this article 