Lens extraction versus laser peripheral iridotomy for acute primary angle closure.

backgroundAcute primary angle closure (APAC) is a potentially blinding condition. It is one of the few ophthalmic emergencies and carries high rates of visual morbidity in the absence of timely intervention. Laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) has been the standard of care thus far. However, LPI does not eliminate the long-term risk of chronic angle closure glaucoma and other associated sequelae. There has been increasing interest in lens extraction as the primary treatment for the spectrum of primary angle closure disease, and it is as yet unclear whether these results can be extrapolated to APAC, and whether lens extraction provides better long-term outcomes. We therefore sought to evaluate the effectiveness of lens extraction in APAC to help inform the decision-making process. 

objectivesTo assess the effect of lens extraction compared to LPI in the treatment of APAC. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2022, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE E-pub Ahead of Print, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily (January 1946 to 10 January 2022), Embase (January 1947 to 10 January 2022), PubMed (1946 to 10 January 2022), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to 10 January 2022), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search. We last searched the electronic databases on 10 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled clinical trials comparing lens extraction against LPI in adult participants ( ≥ 35 years) with APAC in one or both eyes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology and assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for prespecified outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN

resultsWe included two studies conducted in Hong Kong and Singapore, comprising 99 eyes (99 participants) of predominantly Chinese origin. The two studies compared LPI with phacoemulsification performed by experienced surgeons. We assessed that both studies were at high risk of bias. There were no studies evaluating other types of lens extraction procedures.  Phacoemulsification may result in an increased proportion of participants with intraocular pressure (IOP) control compared with LPI at 18 to 24 months (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 2.15; 2 studies, n = 97; low certainty evidence) and may reduce the need for further IOP-lowering surgery within 24 months (RR 0.07, 96% CI 0.01 to 0.51; 2 studies, n = 99; very low certainty evidence). Phacoemulsification may result in a lower mean IOP at 12 months compared to LPI (mean difference (MD) -3.20, 95% CI -4.79 to -1.61; 1 study, n = 62; low certainty evidence) and a slightly lower mean number of IOP-lowering medications at 18 months (MD -0.87, 95% CI -1.28 to -0.46; 1 study, n = 60; low certainty evidence), but this may not be clinically significant. Phacoemulsification may have little to no effect on the proportion of participants with one or more recurrent APAC episodes in the same eye (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.30; 1 study, n = 37; very low certainty evidence). Phacoemulsification may result in a wider iridocorneal angle assessed by Shaffer grading at six months (MD 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.47; 1 study, n = 62; very low certainty evidence). Phacoemulsification may have little to no effect on logMAR best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at six months (MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.02; 2 studies, n = 94; very low certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in the extent of peripheral anterior synechiae (PAS) (clock hours) between intervention arms at 6 months (MD -1.86, 95% CI -7.03 to 3.32; 2 studies, n = 94; very low certainty evidence), although the phacoemulsification group may have less PAS (degrees) at 12 months (MD -94.20, 95% CI -140.37 to -48.03; 1 study, n = 62) and 18 months (MD -127.30, 95% CI -168.91 to -85.69; 1 study, n = 60).  In one study, there were 26 adverse events in the phacoemulsification group: intraoperative corneal edema (n = 12), posterior capsular rupture (n = 1), intraoperative bleeding from iris root (n = 1), postoperative fibrinous anterior chamber reaction (n = 7), and visually significant posterior capsular opacification (n = 5), and no cases of suprachoroidal hemorrhage or endophthalmitis. There were four adverse events in the LPI group: closed iridotomy (n = 1) and small iridotomies that required supplementary laser (n = 3). In the other study, there was one adverse event in the phacoemulsification group (IOP > 30 mmHg on day 1 postoperatively (n = 1)), and no intraoperative complications. There were five adverse events in the LPI group: transient hemorrhage (n = 1), corneal burn (n = 1), and repeated LPI because of non-patency (n = 3).  Neither study reported health- or vision-related quality of life measures. AUTHORS'

conclusionsLow certainty evidence suggests that early lens extraction may produce more favorable outcomes compared to initial LPI in terms of IOP control. Evidence for other outcomes is less clear. Future high-quality and longer-term studies evaluating the effects of either intervention on the development of glaucomatous damage and visual field changes as well as health-related quality of life measures would be helpful.