Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Surgical and laser interventions for pseudoexfoliation glaucoma systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Surgical and laser interventions for pseudoexfoliation glaucoma systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Do you wish to request the book?
Surgical and laser interventions for pseudoexfoliation glaucoma systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Surgical and laser interventions for pseudoexfoliation glaucoma systematic review of randomized controlled trials
2021
Overview
To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of different surgical and laser techniques in people with pseudoexfoliation glaucoma (PXFG). We conducted a systematic review including randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared any pair of surgical or laser treatment versus other type of intervention in PXFG. RCT were identified by a highly sensitive search of electronic databases and two individuals independently assessed trial eligibility, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed Bayesian Meta-Analysis when outcomes were comparable. The search strategy identified 6171 records. Six studies (262 subjects) were included. Two trials analyzed the same pair of surgical interventions comparing phacoemulsification as solo procedure or combined with trabecular aspiration and we performed meta-analysis. Other RCTs compared the following interventions: trabecular aspiration associated with phacoemulsification versus phacotrabeculectomy, non-penetrating deep sclerectomy associated or not with phacoemulsification, selective versus argon laser trabeculoplasty and one-site versus two-site phacotrabeculectomy. For IOP data, none of the trials reported a difference between pairs of surgical techniques, nor changes in visual acuity or number of post-operative medications. The overall risk of bias is moderate to high. There are no apparent differences in efficacy and safety, although with large uncertainty, between surgical or laser techniques for PXFG. Based on the low-quality evidence from the six studies included in this review, it is not possible to justify the preferential use of non-penetrating surgery, MIGS or trabecular aspiration (with or without cataract surgery) in PXFG. Further research is needed to determine the optimal management of this condition.
