Influence of Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty (SLT) on the iStent inject® outcomes.
SLT
iStent inject
Journal
BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Nov 2020
19 Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
20
08
2020
accepted:
09
11
2020
entrez:
20
11
2020
pubmed:
21
11
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate the influence of Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty (SLT) on iStent inject® outcomes in open-angle glaucoma (OAG). In this retrospective comparative cohort outcome study, 66 patients who were treated with two iStent inject® devices were included. Patients were divided into two subgroups consisting of patients without SLT treatment prior to surgery and patients who had been treated previously with 360° SLT but without sufficient response. Outcome measures included intraocular pressure (IOP) and number of antiglaucoma medications after 6 weeks with three, six, 12, and 24 month follow-ups. Mean preoperative IOP decreased from 20.4 ± 5.3 mmHg to 14.8 ± 3.0 mmHg for patients without SLT treatment prior to surgery (p = 0.001) and from 19.2 ± 4.5 mmHg to 14.0 ± 1.6 mmHg for patients with insufficient response to 360° SLT treatment (p = 0.027) at 12 months after iStent inject® implantation. No significant difference was found between the two groups (p > 0.05). The number of antiglaucoma medications did not change in both groups (p > 0.05) and showed no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). Prior SLT treatment seems to have no negative influence on the IOP lowering-effect of iStent inject® implantation in patients with OAG. It is therefore an appropriate incremental procedure with no exclusion criterion for an iStent inject® implantation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the influence of Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty (SLT) on iStent inject® outcomes in open-angle glaucoma (OAG).
METHODS
METHODS
In this retrospective comparative cohort outcome study, 66 patients who were treated with two iStent inject® devices were included. Patients were divided into two subgroups consisting of patients without SLT treatment prior to surgery and patients who had been treated previously with 360° SLT but without sufficient response. Outcome measures included intraocular pressure (IOP) and number of antiglaucoma medications after 6 weeks with three, six, 12, and 24 month follow-ups.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Mean preoperative IOP decreased from 20.4 ± 5.3 mmHg to 14.8 ± 3.0 mmHg for patients without SLT treatment prior to surgery (p = 0.001) and from 19.2 ± 4.5 mmHg to 14.0 ± 1.6 mmHg for patients with insufficient response to 360° SLT treatment (p = 0.027) at 12 months after iStent inject® implantation. No significant difference was found between the two groups (p > 0.05). The number of antiglaucoma medications did not change in both groups (p > 0.05) and showed no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Prior SLT treatment seems to have no negative influence on the IOP lowering-effect of iStent inject® implantation in patients with OAG. It is therefore an appropriate incremental procedure with no exclusion criterion for an iStent inject® implantation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33213403
doi: 10.1186/s12886-020-01723-3
pii: 10.1186/s12886-020-01723-3
pmc: PMC7678109
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
457Références
Adv Ther. 2014 Feb;31(2):189-201
pubmed: 24452726
Lasers Surg Med. 2003;33(3):204-8
pubmed: 12949951
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2012 Mar;23(2):96-104
pubmed: 22249233
Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2010 Jul-Aug;41(4):443-51
pubmed: 20608613
Oman J Ophthalmol. 2018 Jan-Apr;11(1):28-32
pubmed: 29563691
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015 Jun;253(6):941-7
pubmed: 25912085
Ophthalmology. 2004 Oct;111(10):1853-9
pubmed: 15465546
Ophthalmology. 2001 Apr;108(4):773-9
pubmed: 11297496
BMC Ophthalmol. 2015 Aug 19;15:107
pubmed: 26286384
J Glaucoma. 2012 Jan;21(1):65-70
pubmed: 21278588
Ophthalmic Surg. 1987 Nov;18(11):796-9
pubmed: 3696684
Eye (Lond). 2018 May;32(5):863-876
pubmed: 29303146
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014 Apr;252(4):627-31
pubmed: 24413683
Ophthalmology. 1984 Sep;91(9):1005-10
pubmed: 6493712
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2003 Aug;241(8):631-6
pubmed: 12898279
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000 Feb;41(2):422-30
pubmed: 10670472
Am J Ophthalmol. 2005 Sep;140(3):524-5
pubmed: 16139003
Arch Ophthalmol. 2010 Jun;128(6):731-7
pubmed: 20547951
J Glaucoma. 2014 Feb;23(2):105-8
pubmed: 22895521
Br J Ophthalmol. 2005 Sep;89(9):1157-60
pubmed: 16113372
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017 Feb;255(2):359-365
pubmed: 27815624
Clin Ophthalmol. 2014 May 07;8:875-82
pubmed: 24855336
Br J Ophthalmol. 2006 Dec;90(12):1490-4
pubmed: 16899528
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2000 Jul;217(1):1-8; discussion 9
pubmed: 10949810
Br J Ophthalmol. 2006 Jun;90(6):741-3
pubmed: 16464972
Arch Ophthalmol. 2003 Jul;121(7):957-60
pubmed: 12860797
Br J Ophthalmol. 2005 Nov;89(11):1413-7
pubmed: 16234442
Ophthalmology. 1998 Nov;105(11):2082-8; discussion 2089-90
pubmed: 9818610
J Glaucoma. 2006 Apr;15(2):124-30
pubmed: 16633226