Fornix-based versus limbal-based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps for glaucoma

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Volumn 2015, Issue 11, 2015, Pages

  Al Haddad, Christiane ^a   Abdulaal, Marwan ^a   Al Moujahed, Ahmad ^b   Ervin, Ann Margret ^c  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT   (Lebanon)

^b MASSACHUSETTS EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIGLAUCOMA AGENT; FLUOROURACIL; MITOMYCIN; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT;

ADVERSE EVENT; CLOSED ANGLE GLAUCOMA; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DISEASE CONTROL; FOLLOW UP; GERMANY; GLAUCOMA; GREECE; HUMAN; INDIA; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; META ANALYSIS; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PHACOTRABECULECTOMY; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SAUDI ARABIA; STATISTICAL BIAS; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TRABECULECTOMY; TREATMENT FAILURE; UNCERTAINTY; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; CORNEA LIMBUS; PROCEDURES; SCLERA; SURGICAL FLAPS;

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS; FLUOROURACIL; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; LIMBUS CORNEAE; MITOMYCIN; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SCLERA; SURGICAL FLAPS; TRABECULECTOMY; TREATMENT FAILURE;

EID: 85020149022     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1469493X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009380.pub2     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Cotran PR, Roh S, McGwin G. Randomized comparison of 1-site and 2-site phacotrabeculectomy with 3-year follow-up. Ophthalmology 2008;115(3):447-54.
2. el Sayyad F, el-Rashood A, Helal M, Hisham M, el-Maghraby A. Fornix-based versus limbal-based conjunctival flaps in initial trabeculectomy with postoperative 5-fluorouracil: four-year follow-up findings. Journal of Glaucoma 1999;8(2):124-8.
3. Grehn F, Mauthe S, Pfeiffer N. Limbus-based versus fornix-based conjunctival flap in filtering surgery. A randomized prospective study. International Ophthalmology 1989;13(1-2):139-43.
4. Khan AM, Jilani FA. Comparative results of limbal based versus fornix based conjunctival flaps for trabeculectomy. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 1992;40(2):41-3.
5. Kozobolis VP, Siganos CS, Christodoulakis EV, Lazarov NP, Koutentaki MG, Pallikaris IG. Two-site phacotrabeculectomy with intraoperative mitomycin-C: fornix-versus limbus-based conjunctival opening in fellow eyes. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2002;28(10):1758-62.
6. Lemon LC, Shin DH, Kim C, Bendel RE, Hughes BA, Juzych MS. Limbus-based vs fornix-based conjunctival flap in combined glaucoma and cataract surgery with adjunctive mitomycin C. American Academy of Ophthalmology 1998;125(3):340-5.
7. Auw-Hädrich C, Bömer TG, Funk J. Limbus-based versus fornix-based conjunctival flap in trabeculectomy: long-term results after 6-9 years. IOVS. ARVO 1995;36:Abstract 1607.
8. Berestka JS, Brown SV. Limbus- versus fornix-based conjunctival flaps in combined phacoemulsification and mitomycin C trabeculectomy surgery. Ophthalmology 1997;104(2):187-96.
9. Brincker P, Kessing SV. Limbus-based versus fornix-based conjunctival flap in glaucoma filtering surgery. Acta Ophthalmologica 1992;70(5):641-4.
10. Cheng YC, Qiao F. Comparison of two modes of conjunctival flap in trabeculectomy. International Eye Science 2012;12:2405-6.
11. Fukuchi T, Ueda J, Yaoeda K, Suda K, Seki M, Abe H. Comparison of fornix- and limbus-based conjunctival flaps in mitomycin C trabeculectomy with laser suture lysis in Japanese glaucoma patients. Japan Journal of Ophthalmology 2006;50(4):338-44.
12. Henderson HW, Ezra E, Murdoch IE. Early postoperative trabeculectomy leakage: incidence, timecourse, severity, and impact on surgical outcome. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2004;88(5):626-9.
13. Lin YP, Zurakowski D, Ayyala RS. Surgical outcomes of traditional limbal-based versus fornix-based trabeculectomy with corneal valve. Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers & Imaging 2007;38(6):471-7.
14. Mandić Z, Bencić G, Zorić Geber M, Bojić L. Fornix vs limbus based flap in phacotrabeculetomy with mitomycin C: prospective study. Croatian Medical Journal 2004;45(3):275-8.
15. Murchison JF Jr, Shields MB. Limbal-based vs fornix-based conjunctival flaps in combined extracapsular cataract surgery and glaucoma filtering procedure. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1990;109(6):709-15.
16. Reichert R, Stewart W, Shields MB. Limbus-based versus fornix-based conjunctival flaps in trabeculectomy. Ophthalmic Surgery 1987;18(9):672-6.
17. Shingleton BJ, Chaudhry IM, O'Donoghue MW, Baylus SL, King RJ, Chaudhry MB. Phacotrabeculectomy: limbus-based versus fornix-based conjunctival flaps in fellow eyes. Ophthalmology 1999;106(6):1152-5.
18. Stewart WC, Crinkley CM, Carlson AN. Fornix- vs. limbus-based flaps in combined phacoemulsification and trabeculectomy. Documenta Ophthalmologica 1994;88(2):141-51.
19. Traverso CE, Tomey KF, Antonios S. Limbal- vs fornix-based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1987;104(1):28-32.
20. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology AAO. Basic and Clinical Science Course 2002.
21. Albert DM, Miller JW, Azar DT, Blodi BA. Albert & Jakobiec's Principles & Practice of Ophthalmology. 3rd Edition. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company, 2008.
22. Alwitry A, Patel V, King AW. Fornix vs limbal-based trabeculectomy with mitomycin C. Eye 2005;19(6):631-6.
23. Cairns JE. Trabeculectomy. Preliminary report of a new method. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1968;66(4):673-9.
24. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG (editors). Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
25. Friedman D, Vedula SS. Lens extraction for chronic angle-closure glaucoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005555.pub2]
26. Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JN, Camosso-Stefinovic J. How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2006;94(2):130-6.
27. Green E, Wilkins M, Bunce C, Wormald R. 5-Fluorouracil for glaucoma surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001132.pub2]
28. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
29. Jonesco-Cuypers Postoperative complications and management of filtration surgery. Ophthalmologe 2009;106(11):1029-39.
30. Kanski JJ. Glaucoma. Clinical Ophthalmology. 4th Edition. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999:198-234.
31. Kohl DA, Walton DS. Limbus-basedversusfornix-basedconjunctivalflapsintrabeculectomy:2005update. International Ophthalmology Clinics 2005;45(4):107-13.
32. Langendam MW, Akl EA, Dahm P, Glasziou P, Guyatt G, Schünemann HJ. Assessing and presenting summaries of evidence in Cochrane Reviews. Systematic Reviews 2013;2:81.
33. Parc CE, Johnson DH, Oliver JE, Hattenhauer MG, Hodge DO. The long-term outcome of glaucoma filtration surgery. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2001;132(1):27-35.
34. Peeters A, Webers CA, Prins MH, Zeegers MP, Hendrikse F, Schouten JS. Quantifying the effect of intraocular pressure reduction on the occurrence of glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmologica 2009;88(1):5-11.
35. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
36. Rotchford AP, King AJ. Moving the goal posts definitions of success after glaucoma surgery and their effect on reported outcome. Ophthalmology 2009;117(1):18-23.
37. Shrivastava A, Singh K. The effect of cataract extraction on intraocular pressure. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 2010;21(2):118-22.
38. Shuster JN, Krupin T, Kolker AE, Becker B. Limbus- v fornix-based conjunctival flap in trabeculectomy. A long-term randomised study. Archives of Ophthalmology 1984;102(3):361-2.
39. Tezel G, Kolker AE, Kass MA, Wax MB. Comparative results of combined procedures for glaucoma and cataract: II. Limbus-based versus fornix-based conjunctival flaps. Ophthalmic Surgery and Lasers 1997;28(7):551-7.
40. Thylefors B, Negrel AD, Pararajasegaram R, Dadzie KY. Global data on blindness. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 1995;73(1):115-21.
41. Watson P. Trabeculectomy. A modified ab externo technique. Annals of Ophthalmology 1970;2:199-205.
42. Wilkins M, Indar A, Wormald R. Intraoperative Mitomycin C for glaucoma surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002897.pub2]
43. Yamamoto T, Sawada A, Mayama C, Araie M, Ohkubo S, Sugiyama K, et al. The 5-year incidence of bleb-related infection and its risk factors after filtering surgeries with adjunctive mitomycin C: collaborative bleb-related infection incidence and treatment study 2. Ophthalmology 2014;121(5):1001-6.
44. Al-Haddad C, Abdulaal M, Al Moujahed AM, Ervin AM. Limbal versus fornix-based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps for glaucoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009380]