ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Combined viscocanalostomy and retrabeculotomy versus retrabeculotomy for management of refractory primary congenital glaucoma: a comparative study.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2026. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate and compare the long-term clinical outcomes of combined viscocanalostomy and repeat trabeculotomy (VCO+retbo) versus repeat trabeculotomy alone (retbo) in eyes with primary congenital glaucoma (PCG) that failed initial angle surgery.
methodsThis prospective comparative study evaluated 164 eyes with PCG that exhibited an insufficient response to primary trabeculotomy, divided into VCO+retbo (n = 82) and retbo (n = 82) groups. Treatment success was defined as an intraocular pressure (IOP) between 6 and 21 mmHg with a ≥ 20% reduction from baseline, categorized as complete (medication-free) or qualified (with medications). Overall treatment failure served as the principal comparative outcome, whereas complete/qualified success rates and final medication burden were designated as secondary exploratory endpoints.
resultsThe mean follow-up duration was 30.36 ± 13.38 months. Regarding the principal outcome, overall failure rates did not differ significantly between groups (31.7% for VCO+retbo vs. 37.8% for retbo; p = 0.219), nor did Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival (log-rank p = 0.290). In multivariable Cox regression, baseline IOP > 30 mmHg prior to second surgery was the sole independent predictor of failure (HR = 2.33, 95% CI: 1.33-4.11, p = 0.003), whereas surgical technique was not predictive. For secondary outcomes among successfully controlled eyes, final IOP did not differ significantly between groups (16.20 ± 2.94 mmHg vs. 17.67 ± 4.35 mmHg). However, the retbo group maintained control with significantly fewer topical medications (0.98 ± 1.10 vs. 2.04 ± 1.03, p < 0.001). Complete success was achieved in 32.9% of retbo eyes compared to 9.8% of VCO+retbo eyes, whereas qualified success was 29.3% versus 58.5%, respectively (p < 0.001).
conclusionsNo statistically significant difference in overall treatment failure was detected between VCO+retbo and retbo in refractory PCG. Repeat trabeculotomy alone was associated with a higher rate of medication-free success and lower medication burden; these secondary exploratory findings require confirmation in prospective randomized trials with standardized prescribing protocols. ETHICS APPROVAL: The study was approved by the local ethics committee of Tehran University of Medical Sciences (IR. TUMS. FARABIH. REC. 1402.009). The online version of the decree is publicly available at: https://ethics. RESEARCH: ac.ir/IR.TUMS.FARABIH.REC.1402.009 Trial registration: This study was not registered in a clinical trial registry. Per our institution's standard practice, prospective registration is reserved for randomized controlled trials; as both surgical techniques compared here are routine, established procedures rather than novel or experimental interventions, the study proceeded under institutional ethics approval alone. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.