Endoscopic Cyclophotocoagulation Combined with Phacoemulsification Increases Risk of Persistent Anterior Uveitis Compared to Phacoemulsification Surgery Alone

Combined Endoscopic Cyclophotocoagulation and Phacoemulsification Versus Phacoemulsification Alone in the Glaucoma Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The complete safety and efficacy of endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation (ECP) remain unclear in the literature and, to our knowledge, there are no current meta-analyses on phaco-ECP versus phacoemulsification alone to date. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing these two strategies through studies, assessing the effectiveness and safety of outcomes in a population with glaucoma. The protocol for this systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023482376). We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to December 2023. A random-effects model was used for all analyses due to heterogeneity. Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Denmark) was used for statistical analysis. Finally, nine studies were included in this comprehensive review and a total of 5389 eyes were analyzed in our study. In comparison to the ECP and phacoemulsification group, those receiving phacoemulsification alone showed better results in best-corrected visual acuity (MD 0.09; CI 95% 0.03 to 0.16; I²=0%), but worse outcomes in intraocular pressure (IOP) (MD -1.49; 95% CI -2.29 to -0.68; I²=29%) and use medications (MD -0.75; 95% CI -0.94 to -0.56; I²=0%) in the last visit. Complication rates, both general and serious, were significantly different between the groups, indicating the potential impact of combined procedures on patient outcomes. Thus, combining ECP with phacoemulsification for glaucoma treatment showed sustained IOP reduction and decreased medication dependence. However, higher complication rates suggest careful consideration of risks. More extensive research with larger trials and longer follow-ups is needed to validate findings and address limitations, providing valuable insights into this treatment approach.

Endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation for glaucoma compared to alternative procedures -A Systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Despite many recent developments, preference in the choice of surgical treatment of uncontrolled intraocular pressure (IOP) remains a challenge.

OBJECTIVE

This study compares the clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation (ECP) to alternative surgical procedures, for all types of glaucoma.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology adheres to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines for systematic review reporting. Studies reporting ECP and alternative surgeries in treating refractory glaucoma, neovascular glaucoma, aphakic glaucoma, filtering surgical failure-induced glaucoma, congenital or juvenile glaucoma, and secondary glaucoma such as uveitis glaucoma, traumatic glaucoma, secondary glaucoma postcorneal transplantation, etc. were included. The efficacy was evaluated from the number of IOP-lowering drugs, and mean change in pre- and post-IOP were the outcomes assessed in ECP and non-ECP groups in this review. Evaluations of the postoperative complications revealed the safety assessment of the procedure.

RESULTS

In total, 11 relevant studies were selected in this study with a total of 5418 eyes, including 763 eyes in the ECP group and 4655 in the non-ECP group. This review observed that both ECP and non-ECP procedures had been successful in reducing postoperative IOP.

CONCLUSION

It can be deduced from this review, that all types of glaucoma can be treated efficiently with significantly higher success rates with ECP and ECP demonstrates lowest postoperative complications when compared to non ECP procedures. This review provides updated scientific evidence which caters to support clinical decisions for surgical treatment of glaucoma.

Inequities and Research Gaps in Ophthalmology: A Scoping Review

Importance

Deficient ophthalmologic care is costly to patients, making the identification of groups not receiving adequate care of vital importance. The current landscape of equity in ophthalmic care has yet to be thoroughly investigated and is important to ensure inclusivity and patient-centered care.

Objective

To perform a scoping review of the literature pertaining to health care inequities in the field of ophthalmology.

Evidence Review

A comprehensive database search using MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Ovid Embase was done in July 2022. English-language articles published from 2016 to 2021 were included and encompassed all article types except commentaries or correspondence. The search modeled the National Institutes of Health list of designated US health inequity populations, which includes income, education level, occupational status, rural and underresourced area, sex and gender, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) identity, and race and ethnicity. A total of 8170 abstracts and titles were screened by 2 independent investigators, and 189 studies were assessed in full text for eligibility. For inclusion, articles needed to be an ophthalmic study discussing health inequities. In a masked, duplicate fashion, 2 independent investigators screened 75 full-text studies for data extraction using a pilot-tested form. Data extraction included general publication characteristics and health inequity data based on the National Institutes of Health's defined inequity groups.

Findings

A total of 75 publications were included. Notable inequities were found among Black and Hispanic patients associated with negative ophthalmic outcomes and mixed associations regarding sex or gender. Overall, lower-income patients were more likely to have vision impairment, use eye care services less, and have lower adherence to eye examinations. No articles within our sample examined LGBTQ inequities among ophthalmology patients since the 2016 National Institutes of Health classification of sexual and gender minority populations. Substantial research gaps were observed within the ophthalmic literature pertaining to the LGBTQ community, race and ethnicity, and rural and underresourced areas.

Conclusions and Relevance

This scoping review found substantial findings associated with the LGBTQ community, race and ethnicity, and the role of telemedicine in rural and underresourced areas. Because of the importance of ophthalmic care in overall patient health, it is vital to understand the various inequities present and strive to improve the current gaps in the literature. Future studies should (1) examine barriers to clinical study and medical trainee recruitment as well as patient values and preference studies and (2) investigate the implementation of telemedicine in underresourced areas.

Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery: Safety of Individual Devices

Primary open-angle glaucoma progression in those already on maximal medical therapy has traditionally been treated with trabeculectomy, a surgical procedure that carries a high degree of morbidity. In the last few decades, significant advances have been made in the field of minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) devices, which aim to defer or prevent trabeculectomy via less arduous surgical techniques in certain types of glaucoma. Although reviews have been published examining the efficacy of various MIGS techniques, no article synthesises the comparative safety of all available devices. We performed a literature review examining the safety of MIGS devices. Fifteen devices were included, variously attempting to increase aqueous outflow through the trabecular meshwork or the suprachoroidal space, shunting into the subconjunctival space, or reducing aqueous production through ciliary body ablation. Notably, the earliest product attempting to increase outflow to the suprachoroidal space, Alcon's CyPass Micro-Stent, was withdrawn from the market due to concerns regarding increased corneal endothelial cell loss at five years post-implantation. All other devices were described as well-tolerated, with the most common adverse effects including hyphaema, intraocular pressure spikes, and device migration or obstruction. MIGS devices are purported to be uniformly safe, and many studies report no statistically significant increased complications beyond those associated with cataract surgery alone. It is important to note, however, the generally poor quality of current studies, with a dearth of randomised, or even prospective, data, and a large proportion of studies funded by device producers.