ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To report outcomes of patients who have undergone combined Trabectome and pars plana vitrectomy. METHODS: Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective chart review of patients seen at the Cincinnati Eye Institute before January 2014 undergoing combined Trabectome and pars plana vitrectomy for uncontrolled glaucoma and visually significant retina pathology. Charts were reviewed to identify changes in intraocular pressure, visual acuity, and change in glaucoma medication requirement up to 1 year after surgery. RESULTS: Four patients met the inclusion criteria with 12-month follow-up, and two of the patients were male. All patients underwent 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy and Trabectome surgery. Mean preoperative LogMAR visual acuity was 0.39 (20/49) and 12-month LogMAR visual acuity was 0.21 (20/32) (P = 0.06). Mean preoperative intraocular pressure was 17 mmHg and mean preoperative glaucoma medication requirement was 2.5 topical medications. Twelve-month mean intraocular pressure was 12.8 mmHg (P = 0.07), and mean topical glaucoma medication requirement was 2.3 medications (P = 0.39). All patients were off steroids and anti-inflammatories at the final visit. One patient developed a hyphema requiring anterior chamber washout at 1 week. No other complications occurred. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that combined Trabectome and pars plana vitrectomy seems effective in the management of glaucoma in patients with visually significant retina pathology.
Subject(s)
Glaucoma, Open-Angle/surgery , Retinal Diseases/surgery , Trabeculectomy/methods , Vitrectomy/methods , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Glaucoma, Open-Angle/physiopathology , Humans , Intraocular Pressure/physiology , Lens Implantation, Intraocular , Male , Microsurgery , Middle Aged , Phacoemulsification , Prognosis , Retinal Diseases/physiopathology , Retrospective Studies , Tonometry, Ocular , Trabecular Meshwork/surgery , Visual Acuity/physiologyABSTRACT
In the last 5 years, numerous novel ocular hypotensive agents have been introduced for the control of intraocular pressure (IOP). Clinicians now have more options than ever in medical therapy for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension. When selecting an ocular hypotensive medication for their patients, clinicians should consider not only the IOP-lowering efficacy of an agent but also the ability of the drug to achieve target levels of IOP that are low enough to stop the progression of glaucomatous damage. Other considerations should include how well the drug controls diurnal IOP, the likelihood of serious adverse events, the versatility of the medication for use as an adjunctive agent, as well as other potential attributes (e.g., neuroprotection).
Subject(s)
Antihypertensive Agents/therapeutic use , Glaucoma, Open-Angle/drug therapy , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Intraocular Pressure/drug effects , Tonometry, OcularABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the 2% dorzolamide/0.5% timolol combination ophthalmic solution twice daily to the concomitant administration of 0.2% brimonidine ophthalmic solution twice daily and 0.5% timolol ophthalmic solution twice daily. DESIGN: Randomized, multicenter, observer-masked, parallel-group study. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred ninety-three patients with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma participated. INTERVENTION: After an open-label 3-week 0.5% timolol run-in period, patients with an hour 2 intraocular pressure (IOP) of > or = 22 mmHg were randomly assigned to receive either the dorzolamide/timolol combination twice daily or the concomitant use of brimonidine twice daily and timolol twice daily (brimonidine + timolol) for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The IOP-lowering effects at hour 0 and hour 2 were collected at 1, 3, and 6 months. We hypothesized that both treatment regimens would have comparable hour 2 IOP-lowering effects at month 3. The treatments were considered comparable if the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference was within +/- 1.5 mmHg. Tolerability data were also collected at 1, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS: The primary efficacy analysis was based on the modified intent-to-treat population. At month 3, hour 2, the dorzolamide/timolol group had an adjusted mean (standard error) change in IOP of -5.04 (0.30) mmHg versus -5.41 (0.30) mmHg in the brimonidine + timolol group, with a treatment difference of 0.36 (0.40) mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI] of -0.42-1.14 mmHg). At month 3, hour 0, the dorzolamide/timolol group had a change in IOP of -3.66 (0.29) mmHg versus -4.15 (0.28) mmHg in the brimonidine + timolol group, with a treatment difference of 0.49 (0.39) mmHg (95% CI of -0.27-1.25 mmHg). Likewise, at all other observed time points, the 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference was within +/- 1.5 mmHg. Ninety-three patients (64%) in the dorzolamide/timolol group and 88 patients (60%) in the brimonidine + timolol group had adverse experiences that were deemed drug related by the investigator, for which 7 patients (5%) in the dorzolamide/timolol group and 8 patients (5%) in the brimonidine + timolol group were discontinued from the study. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of the dorzolamide/timolol combination and the concomitant administration of brimonidine and timolol were comparable. The incidence of drug-related adverse experiences and the incidence of discontinuations caused by drug-related adverse experiences were similar between groups.
