Reintervention rate in glaucoma filtering surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Glaucoma
filtering surgery
reintervention rate
reoperation
Journal
European journal of ophthalmology
ISSN: 1724-6016
Titre abrégé: Eur J Ophthalmol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9110772
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
28
4
2022
medline:
13
8
2022
entrez:
27
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Reintervention rate is an important factor impacting on patients, surgeons, and society. To date, only a few studies have focused on this topic. For this reason, a systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to assess the reintervention rate after glaucoma filtering surgery. Prospective studies reporting the reintervention rate after glaucoma filtering surgery and with at least 12 months of follow-up were systematically searched on PubMed, Medline and Embase databases. The primary outcome was the total reintervention rate following surgery. Secondary outcomes were: the rate of manipulation, in-clinic and in-operating room reintervention; the reintervention rate for intraocular pressure (IOP) control and for complications; demographic, clinical and surgical variables associated with reintervention rate. Ninety-three studies with a total of 8345 eyes were eligible. The total reintervention rate was 1.84 (95% CI 1.57-2.13), with a lower rate for Baerveldt (0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.83) and Preserflo (0.60, 95% CI 0.15-1.29), and a higher rate for Xen (4.26, 95% CI 2.59-6.31). The manipulation rate was 0.99 (95% CI 0.77-1.23), the in-clinic reintervention rate was 0.08 (95% CI 0.05-0.12) and the in-operating room reintervention rate was 0.28 (95% CI 0.22-0.35). The reintervention rate for IOP control was 1.26 (95% CI 1.04-1.51) and the reintervention rate for complications was 0.27 (95% CI 0.21-0.35). All types of surgery presented a total reintervention rate similar to the overall findings, except studies on Baerveldt and Preserflo Microshunt, with a lower rate, and Xen, with a higher rate. None of the variables evaluated were found to be directly associated with the explored outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35473447
doi: 10.1177/11206721221093828
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM