• Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Aug 2020

    Review Meta Analysis

    Surgical interventions for primary congenital glaucoma.

    • Meghal Gagrani, Itika Garg, and Deepta Ghate.
    • Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
    • Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2020 Aug 25; 8: CD008213.

    BackgroundPrimary congenital glaucoma (PCG) is an optic neuropathy with high intraocular pressure (IOP) that manifests within the first few years of a child's life and is not associated with other systemic or ocular abnormalities. PCG results in considerable morbidity even in high-income countries.ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness and safety of different surgical techniques for PCG.Search MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2020, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (last searched 23 June 2014); 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 27 April 2020.Selection CriteriaWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing different surgical interventions in children under five years of age with PCG.Data Collection And AnalysisWe used standard Cochrane methodology.Main ResultsWe included 16 trials (13 RCTs and three quasi-RCTs) with 587 eyes in 446 children. Eleven (69%) trials were conducted in Egypt and the Middle East, three in India, and two in the USA. All included trials involved children younger than five years of age, with follow-up ranging from six to 80 months. The interventions compared varied across trials. Three trials (on 68 children) compared combined trabeculotomy and trabeculectomy (CTT) with trabeculotomy. Meta-analysis of these trials suggests there may be little to no evidence of a difference between groups in mean IOP (mean difference (MD) 0.27 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.74 to 1.29; 88 eyes; 2 studies) and surgical success (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 102 eyes; 3 studies) at one year postoperatively. We assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for these outcomes, downgrading for risk of bias (-1) and imprecision (-2). Hyphema was the most common adverse outcome in both groups (no meta-analysis due to considerable heterogeneity; I2 = 83%). Two trials (on 39 children) compared viscotrabeculotomy to conventional trabeculotomy. Meta-analysis of 42 eyes suggests there is no evidence of between groups difference in mean IOP (MD -1.64, 95% CI -5.94 to 2.66) and surgical success (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.78) at six months postoperatively. We assessed the certainty of evidence as very low, downgrading for risk of bias and imprecision due to small sample size. Hyphema was the most common adverse outcome (38% in viscotrabeculotomy and 28% in conventional trabeculotomy), with no evidence of difference difference (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.83). Two trials (on 95 children) compared microcatheter-assisted 360-degree circumferential trabeculotomy to conventional trabeculotomy. Meta-analysis of two trials suggests that mean IOP may be lower in the microcatheter group at six months (MD -2.44, 95% CI -3.69 to -1.19; 100 eyes) and at 12 months (MD -1.77, 95% CI -2.92 to -0.63; 99 eyes); and surgical success was more likely to be achieved in the microcatheter group compared to the conventional trabeculotomy group (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.21; 60 eyes; 1 trial at 6 months; RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.97; 99 eyes; 2 trials at 12 months). We assessed the certainty of evidence for these outcomes as moderate due to small sample size. Hyphema was the most common adverse outcome (40% in the microcatheter group and 17% in the conventional trabeculotomy group), with greater likelihood of occurring in the microcatheter group (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.25 to 4.04); the evidence was of moderate certainty due to small sample size (-1). Of the nine remaining trials, no two trials compared the same two surgical interventions: one trial compared CTT versus CTT with sclerectomy; three trials compared various suturing techniques and adjuvant use including mitomycin C, collagen implant in CTT; one trial compared CTT versus Ahmed valve implant in previously failed surgeries; one trial compared CTT with trabeculectomy; one trial compared trabeculotomy to goniotomy; and two trials compared different types of goniotomy. No trials reported quality of life or economic data. Many of the included trials had limitations in study design, implementation, and reporting, therefore the reliability and applicability of the evidence remains unclear.Authors' ConclusionsThe evidence suggests that there may be little to no evidence of difference between CTT and routine conventional trabeculotomy, or between viscotrabeculotomy and routine conventional trabeculotomy. A 360-degree circumferential trabeculotomy may show greater surgical success than conventional trabeculotomy. Considering the rarity of the disease, future research would benefit from a multicenter, possibly international trial, involving parents of children with PCG and with a follow-up of at least one year.Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…