ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2022
Ultrasound Cyclo Plasty After Failed Glaucoma Surgery: Outcomes and Complications.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Efficacy and Safety of Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Efficacy of ultrasound cyclo-plasty in treatment of glaucoma in Asian population.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Efficacy of ultrasound cyclo-plasty in patients with refractory glaucoma.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety of ultrasonic cycloplastyInternational journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Efficacy and safety of ultrasound cycloplasty for the treatment of glaucoma: a Meta-analysis.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Outcomes and Predictors of Failure of Ultrasound Cyclo Plasty for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma.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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe purpose of this study is to report the outcomes and complications of ultrasound cyclo plasty (UCP) after failed glaucoma surgery.
methodsA retrospective case series included patients with previously failed glaucoma surgery who underwent UCP at King Abdul Aziz University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between 2016 and 2021. The main outcome measures were: intraocular pressure (IOP), number of antiglaucoma medications and presence of vision-threatening complications. The surgical outcome of each eye was based on the main outcome measures.
resultsSeventy eyes of 70 patients were included in the study. The mean follow-up period was 31.89 months (± 17.5). The IOP and the number of antiglaucoma medications decreased significantly from a mean of 23.91 mmHg (± 6.3) and 3.43 (± 0.8) to 17.88 mmHg (± 8.1) and 2.48 (± 1.3) and of 16.74 (± 7.9) and 2.11 (± 1.3) at the 12th and 24th months postoperatively, respectively (p < 0.01 for both). The success rates were 77.1% (54/70) and 48.6% (34/70), while the failure rates were 22.9% (16/70) and 2.9% (2/70) at the 12th and 24th months postoperatively, respectively. The cumulative probabilities of success were 70.0% (± 5.5%) and 47.1% (± 6.0%) at the 12th and 24th months postoperatively, respectively. The most common complications were anterior chamber reaction (24.3%), cataract development/progression (18.6%), hypotony/choroidal detachment (4.3%), phthisis bulbi (1.4%) and aqueous misdirection (1.4%).
conclusionsUCP is an effective treatment modality to control IOP and decrease the burden of antiglaucoma medications in eyes with previously failed glaucoma surgery. Monitoring and counseling of possible postoperative complications are needed.
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.