ArticlePloS one2016
Comparing Trabeculectomy Outcomes between First and Second Operated Eyes: A Multicenter Study.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sequential Serous Choroidal Detachment in Subjects Undergoing Bilateral Trabeculectomy.Journal of ophthalmic & vision research · 2024Article
- MicroShunt versus Trabeculectomy for Surgical Management of Glaucoma: A Retrospective Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare surgical outcomes between the first and second operated eyes in patients who underwent trabeculectomy in both eyes.
methodsThis retrospective clinical cohort study at five clinical centers in Japan included 84 patients with open-angle glaucoma who underwent primary trabeculectomy in both eyes. The primary outcome was surgical success or failure, with failure being defined according to three criteria: <20% reduction of the preoperative intraocular pressure (IOP), or Criterion A, IOP >21 mmHg; Criterion B, IOP >18 mmHg; or Criterion C, IOP >15 mmHg. Cases of reoperation, a loss of light perception vision, or hypotony were also considered as "failures".
resultsThere were no significant differences in success rate for any of the three criteria between the first and second operated eyes. For patients whose first trabeculectomy was successful, when the second trabeculectomy was performed ≥2 months after the first, the survival curves for all three criteria for the second trabeculectomy were significantly worse than those for patients waiting a shorter interval between trabeculectomies (Criterion A, 52.0% vs 83.6%, P = 0.0031; Criterion B, 51.5% vs 80.4%, P = 0.026; Criterion C, 51.1% vs 80.4%, P = 0.048). In multivariable analyses, a longer interval between trabeculectomies was a significant prognostic factor for surgical failure (Criterion A, P = 0.0055; Criterion B, P = 0.0023; Criterion C, P = 0.027). However, no dependency on the interval between trabeculectomies was found among patients whose first trabeculectomy failed.
conclusionsIf the first trabeculectomy is successful, a long interval before the second trabeculectomy increases the risk of surgical failure in the second eye. This result has clinical implications for developing surgical strategies for patients with bilateral glaucoma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.