Comparison of Bent Ab-Interno Needle Goniectomy and Goniotomy in Primary Congenital Glaucoma: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Q2 Medicine Ophthalmology. Glaucoma Pub Date : 2024-08-22 DOI:10.1016/j.ogla.2024.08.003
Sushmita Kaushik, Kajree Gupta, Shrushti Hunashyal, Manik Sardana, Faisal Thattaruthody, Surinder Singh Pandav
{"title":"Comparison of Bent Ab-Interno Needle Goniectomy and Goniotomy in Primary Congenital Glaucoma: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Sushmita Kaushik, Kajree Gupta, Shrushti Hunashyal, Manik Sardana, Faisal Thattaruthody, Surinder Singh Pandav","doi":"10.1016/j.ogla.2024.08.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Primary congenital glaucoma (PCG) is a potentially blinding disease, and the search for the best surgical option always remains. This study investigated the efficacy of Bent Ab-Interno Needle Goniectomy (BANG) compared to the established standard of traditional goniotomy.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Parallel-group randomized controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Infants with PCG aged 1 month to 1 year with similar clinical features in both eyes.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>The 2 eyes of eligible patients were randomized to either goniotomy or BANG using a 25-gauge needle bent as a reverse cystitome, and the surgeries were done on the same day in both eyes. Postoperatively each infant was followed up for a minimum period of 1 year.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcomes measured were intraocular pressure (IOP) control and the requirement for antiglaucoma medications (AGMs). The secondary outcome measures included corneal clarity enhancement, axial length stability, incidence of surgical complications, or the need for repeat surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight infants with both eyes eligible, were included. In each infant, 1 eye was randomized to BANG and the other to conventional goniotomy. The mean age was 7.6 ± 3.6 months. There was no significant difference in the mean preoperative IOP (16.8 ± 8.87 mm Hg vs. 17 ± 6.0 mm Hg; P = 0.48) in eyes randomized to goniotomy or BANG. The mean number of AGMs (1.7 ± 1.11 vs. 2 ± 0.81 respectively; P = 0.26) were similar in both groups. Postoperatively, the IOP at 6 months (14.05 ± 4.1 vs. 16.2 ± 4.07; P = 0.22) and 1 year (15.3 ± 3.4 vs. 17.1 ± 3.0; P = 0.15) were similar in eyes that underwent goniotomy or BANG respectively. Both procedures demonstrated significant improvements in corneal clarity and maintained normal axial length growth. However, the BANG group required slightly more AGMs than the goniotomy group. There were no serious complications in either group. Both eyes of 1 patient required repeat surgery for IOP control and underwent a combined trabeculotomy with trabeculectomy at 9 months and 1 year postoperatively, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study indicates that goniotomy remains an effective surgical treatment for PCG. The absence of discernible superiority in IOP control or overall outcomes implies that the added complexity of excising the trabecular meshwork in BANG may not confer additional benefits over the established approach.</p><p><strong>Financial disclosure(s): </strong>The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.</p>","PeriodicalId":56368,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology. Glaucoma","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology. Glaucoma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogla.2024.08.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Primary congenital glaucoma (PCG) is a potentially blinding disease, and the search for the best surgical option always remains. This study investigated the efficacy of Bent Ab-Interno Needle Goniectomy (BANG) compared to the established standard of traditional goniotomy.

Design: Parallel-group randomized controlled trial.

Participants: Infants with PCG aged 1 month to 1 year with similar clinical features in both eyes.

Intervention: The 2 eyes of eligible patients were randomized to either goniotomy or BANG using a 25-gauge needle bent as a reverse cystitome, and the surgeries were done on the same day in both eyes. Postoperatively each infant was followed up for a minimum period of 1 year.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes measured were intraocular pressure (IOP) control and the requirement for antiglaucoma medications (AGMs). The secondary outcome measures included corneal clarity enhancement, axial length stability, incidence of surgical complications, or the need for repeat surgery.

Results: Eight infants with both eyes eligible, were included. In each infant, 1 eye was randomized to BANG and the other to conventional goniotomy. The mean age was 7.6 ± 3.6 months. There was no significant difference in the mean preoperative IOP (16.8 ± 8.87 mm Hg vs. 17 ± 6.0 mm Hg; P = 0.48) in eyes randomized to goniotomy or BANG. The mean number of AGMs (1.7 ± 1.11 vs. 2 ± 0.81 respectively; P = 0.26) were similar in both groups. Postoperatively, the IOP at 6 months (14.05 ± 4.1 vs. 16.2 ± 4.07; P = 0.22) and 1 year (15.3 ± 3.4 vs. 17.1 ± 3.0; P = 0.15) were similar in eyes that underwent goniotomy or BANG respectively. Both procedures demonstrated significant improvements in corneal clarity and maintained normal axial length growth. However, the BANG group required slightly more AGMs than the goniotomy group. There were no serious complications in either group. Both eyes of 1 patient required repeat surgery for IOP control and underwent a combined trabeculotomy with trabeculectomy at 9 months and 1 year postoperatively, respectively.

Conclusions: This study indicates that goniotomy remains an effective surgical treatment for PCG. The absence of discernible superiority in IOP control or overall outcomes implies that the added complexity of excising the trabecular meshwork in BANG may not confer additional benefits over the established approach.

Financial disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
原发性先天性青光眼的弯曲腹腔针眼切开术与眼球切开术的比较:随机对照试验。
目的:原发性先天性青光眼(PCG)是一种潜在的致盲性疾病,人们一直在寻找最佳的手术方案。本研究调查了弯曲腹腔内针眼球切开术(BANG)与传统眼球切开术的既定标准相比的疗效:设计:平行分组随机对照试验 参与者:患有 PCG 的一个月至一岁婴儿,双眼临床特征相似:符合条件的患者的双眼随机接受开孔术或 BANG 术,使用 25 号针头弯曲作为反向膀胱镜,双眼在同一天进行手术。术后对每个婴儿进行至少一年的随访:测量的主要结果是眼压(IOP)控制和抗青光眼药物(AGMs)需求。次要结果包括角膜透明度的提高、轴向长度的稳定性、手术并发症的发生率或是否需要再次手术:共纳入了 8 名双眼均符合条件的婴儿。每个婴儿的一只眼睛随机接受 BANG 手术,另一只眼睛接受传统的眼球切开术。婴儿的平均年龄为 7.6±3.6 个月。随机接受眼球切开术或 BANG 术的婴儿术前平均眼压无明显差异(16.8 +8.87 mm Hg 对 17+6.0 mm Hg;P=0.48)。两组的 AGM 平均数(分别为 1.7±1.11 对 2+0.81;P=0.26)相似。术后 6 个月(14.05+4.1 对 16.2+4.07;P=0.22)和 1 年(15.3 ± 3.4 对 17.1 + 3.0;P=0.15)的眼压分别与眼球切开术和 BANG 术相似。两种手术都明显改善了角膜透明度,并保持了正常的轴长增长。不过,BANG 组所需的 AGM 略多于眼球切开术组。两组患者均未出现严重并发症。一名患者的双眼需要再次手术以控制眼压,并分别在术后九个月和一年时接受了联合小梁切开术和小梁切除术:本研究表明,眼球切开术仍然是治疗 PCG 的有效手术方法。结论:本研究表明,开颅手术仍然是治疗 PCG 的有效手术方法,但在眼压控制或总体疗效方面并无明显优势,这意味着 BANG 术中切除小梁网所增加的复杂性可能不会带来比既有方法更多的益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ophthalmology. Glaucoma
Ophthalmology. Glaucoma Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
140
期刊最新文献
The Robison D. Harley, MD Childhood Glaucoma Research Network International Pediatric Glaucoma Registry: The First 872 Cases. Relationships between Frailty and the Risk of Glaucoma in Middle-aged and Older Adults. Re: Chan et al.: Effect of preoperative trabecular meshwork pigmentation and other eye characteristics on outcomes of combined phacoemulsification/minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2024; 7:271-281). Reply. Manometric Intraocular Pressure Reduction with Negative Pressure Using Ocular Pressure Adjusting Pump Goggles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1