Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) ; 10(6): 553-563, 2021 Nov 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34839343

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To report outcomes of glaucoma drainage device (GDD) surgery based on primary or secondary glaucoma diagnosis and lens status. DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective, consecutive cohort study. METHODS: University of Florida patients aged 18 to 93 years who underwent nonvalved GDD surgery between 1996 and 2015 with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were examined. Of the 186 eyes of 186 patients enrolled, 108 had a primary glaucoma and 78 a secondary glaucoma diagnosis. Excluding 13 aphakic patients, 57 eyes were phakic and 116 pseudophakic. Mean intraocular pressure (IOP), mean number of medications, visual acuity (VA), surgical complications, and failure (IOP ≥18 mm Hg, IOP <6 mm Hg, reoperation for glaucoma, or loss of light perception) were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: No significant difference was noted in mean IOP and mean medication use (12.8 ±â€Š4.5 and 13.0 ±â€Š6.6 mm Hg on 2.0 ±â€Š1.2 and 1.5 ±â€Š1.1 medication classes, respectively), mean VA (1.08 ±â€Š0.98 and 0.94 ±â€Š0.89, respectively), failure, or numbers of complications and reoperations (P > 0.05) between eyes with primary and secondary glaucomas at up to 5 years postoperatively. Comparison of phakic and pseudophakic eyes showed a statistically significant higher success rate for the pseudophakic patient group at the ≥18 mm Hg upper limit and <6 mm Hg lower limit (P = 0.01), and significantly fewer eyes required reoperation to lower IOP (6.9% vs 23%). CONCLUSIONS: GDD surgery appears equally effective for secondary glaucomas as for primary glaucomas, and has a better outcome for pseudophakic eyes than phakic eyes.


Assuntos
Implantes para Drenagem de Glaucoma , Glaucoma , Estudos de Coortes , Seguimentos , Glaucoma/cirurgia , Humanos , Pressão Intraocular , Estudos Retrospectivos , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
J Curr Glaucoma Pract ; 13(1): 37-41, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31496560

RESUMO

AIM: The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid (SAHA), a histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDI) with a broad spectrum epigenetic activity, in improving filtration bleb survival as an adjunct therapy to glaucoma filtration surgery (GFS) in the rabbit model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen New Zealand White rabbits underwent GFS in the left eye and were randomized to receive either a subconjunctival (SC) injection of 0.1 mL SAHA (9.25 µg/mL) or balanced saline solution (BSS) at the end of surgery, or a 3-minute intraoperative topical application of 0.4 mg/mL mitomycin-C (MMC). Bleb survival and histology were compared. RESULTS: Blebs of rabbits receiving injections of SAHA survived an average (mean ± SD) of 23.2 ± 2.7 days. SAHA rabbits showed a nonsignificant improvement over rabbits that received an injection of BSS, which had a mean survival time of 19.7 ± 2.7 days (p = 0.38) according to a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Eyes receiving intraoperative topical MMC survived an average of 32.5 ± 3.3 days, which is significantly longer than both the control group treated with BSS (p = 0.01) and the experimental group treated with the SAHA (p = 0.0495). SAHA was well tolerated and showed no significant avascularity, necrosis, or conjunctival thinning. CONCLUSION: Although it was well tolerated, a single intraoperative injection of SAHA did not significantly prolong bleb survival in the rabbit model. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Epigenetic adjuncts hold promise for improving GFS outcome; however, future studies must continue to examine different administration protocols and dosages to substantiate their efficacy. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Rodgers CD, Lukowski ZL, et al. Modulating Ocular Scarring in Glaucoma Filtration Surgery Using the Epigenetic Adjunct Suberoylanilide Hydroxamic Acid. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2019;13(1):37-41.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA