ArticleInternational ophthalmology2021
Anterior versus posterior endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation: comparison of indications, populations, and outcomes.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine how indications, patient characteristics, and outcomes differ between anterior and posterior approaches of endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation (ECP) in the treatment of glaucoma.
methodsThis is a retrospective chart review of 9 anterior and 20 posterior ECP cases (n = 29).
resultsPosterior ECP cases were typically associated with a dramatic increase in intraocular pressure (IOP), whereas the anterior ECP was associated with chronically elevated pressures. The initial IOPs in mm Hg of posterior ECP cases (26.8 non-NVG; 35.2 NVG) were much greater than anterior ECP cases (17.8), and a greater overall reduction in IOP was observed in the posterior versus anterior ECP cases (10.3 posterior non-NVG; 21.3 posterior NVG; 3.6 anterior, P < .001). With procedural success defined as 6-month post-operative IOP falling within normal ranges and a decrease in either IOP or number of prescribed glaucoma medications, the success rate of ECP was 92% for posterior NVG, 89% for anterior and 75% for posterior non-NVG cases (P = .34), similar to the previous literature. Of the four unsuccessful cases, two resulted in a normal IOP but lacked a drop in pressure or reduction in medication burden, one resulted in a 6-point drop in IOP but remained at 23 mm Hg, and one resulted in phthisis bulbi (3%) from an initial pressure above 40 mm Hg.
conclusionEndoscopic cyclophotocoagulation is an effective and safe procedure for severe glaucoma cases from both an anterior and posterior approach. Ophthalmologists should consider this procedure as part of their glaucoma treatment arsenal.
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.