Comparison of Methods to Deliver Mitomycin C in Trabeculectomy Surgery

IF 3.2 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Alessandro Ghirardi MD , Siqi Fan MD , Karl Mercieca MD, FRCOphth , Gianni Virgili MD , Stefano De Cillà MD , Alessandro Rabiolo MD
{"title":"Comparison of Methods to Deliver Mitomycin C in Trabeculectomy Surgery","authors":"Alessandro Ghirardi MD ,&nbsp;Siqi Fan MD ,&nbsp;Karl Mercieca MD, FRCOphth ,&nbsp;Gianni Virgili MD ,&nbsp;Stefano De Cillà MD ,&nbsp;Alessandro Rabiolo MD","doi":"10.1016/j.ogla.2025.04.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Topic</h3><div>Compare different methods to deliver mitomycin<span> C (MMC) in trabeculectomy surgery.</span></div></div><div><h3>Clinical Relevance</h3><div>Knowing the best way to apply MMC may provide guidance to glaucoma surgeons and improve outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div><span>Systematic review<span> and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42023394371) for studies comparing ≥ 2 methods to apply MMC in trabeculectomy published until February 22, 2023, from Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized, and prospective nonrandomized controlled studies published in English and conducted on human subjects were included. The primary outcome was surgical failure at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included </span></span>intraocular pressure<span> (IOP), number of glaucoma medications<span>, postoperative complications, and interventions. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for ≥ 3 studies, whereas a fixed-effect model was used for 2 studies. The certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) score.</span></span></div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>From 7899 records, 8 articles from 7 RCTs compared intraoperative sub-Tenon MMC injection (315 participants) and intraoperative MMC-soaked sponges (327 participants). One RCT and 1 quasi-randomized study compared postoperative (60 participants) and intraoperative (60 participants) MMC-soaked sponge application. In the injection vs. sponges comparison, no significant difference in surgical failure (relative risk [RR]: 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48–1.28; <em>P</em> = 0.33, GRADE score moderate) or IOP (mean difference [MD]: −0.85 mmHg, 95% CI: −2.19 to 0.49; <em>P</em> = 0.21, GRADE score moderate) was found at 1 year. Sub-Tenon injection resulted in fewer postoperative medications (MD: −0.40, 95% CI: −0.63 to −0.18; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001; GRADE score moderate) and better bleb morphology (GRADE score high) in terms of height (MD: −0.39, 95% CI: −0.61 to −0.18; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001), extension (MD: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.11–0.45; <em>P</em><span> = 0.001), and vascularity (MD: −0.52, 95% CI: −0.72, −0.31; </span><em>P</em> &lt; 0.001) than sponges. Serious complication and reintervention rates were low and comparable between groups. We did not perform a meta-analysis comparing postoperative and intraoperative sponge application because of heterogeneity in the study designs of the included studies.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Intraoperative sub-Tenon MMC injection is noninferior to intraoperative MMC-soaked sponges in trabeculectomy surgery in terms of surgical failure and IOP control, with a reduced number of medications, improved bleb morphology, and similar safety profile. Further research with a long-term follow-up is necessary to confirm their long-term equivalence.</div></div><div><h3>Financial Disclosure(s)</h3><div>Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":19519,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology. Glaucoma","volume":"8 5","pages":"Pages 503-514"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology. Glaucoma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589419625000729","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Topic

Compare different methods to deliver mitomycin C (MMC) in trabeculectomy surgery.

Clinical Relevance

Knowing the best way to apply MMC may provide guidance to glaucoma surgeons and improve outcomes.

Methods

Systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42023394371) for studies comparing ≥ 2 methods to apply MMC in trabeculectomy published until February 22, 2023, from Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized, and prospective nonrandomized controlled studies published in English and conducted on human subjects were included. The primary outcome was surgical failure at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included intraocular pressure (IOP), number of glaucoma medications, postoperative complications, and interventions. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for ≥ 3 studies, whereas a fixed-effect model was used for 2 studies. The certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) score.

Results

From 7899 records, 8 articles from 7 RCTs compared intraoperative sub-Tenon MMC injection (315 participants) and intraoperative MMC-soaked sponges (327 participants). One RCT and 1 quasi-randomized study compared postoperative (60 participants) and intraoperative (60 participants) MMC-soaked sponge application. In the injection vs. sponges comparison, no significant difference in surgical failure (relative risk [RR]: 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48–1.28; P = 0.33, GRADE score moderate) or IOP (mean difference [MD]: −0.85 mmHg, 95% CI: −2.19 to 0.49; P = 0.21, GRADE score moderate) was found at 1 year. Sub-Tenon injection resulted in fewer postoperative medications (MD: −0.40, 95% CI: −0.63 to −0.18; P < 0.001; GRADE score moderate) and better bleb morphology (GRADE score high) in terms of height (MD: −0.39, 95% CI: −0.61 to −0.18; P < 0.001), extension (MD: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.11–0.45; P = 0.001), and vascularity (MD: −0.52, 95% CI: −0.72, −0.31; P < 0.001) than sponges. Serious complication and reintervention rates were low and comparable between groups. We did not perform a meta-analysis comparing postoperative and intraoperative sponge application because of heterogeneity in the study designs of the included studies.

Conclusions

Intraoperative sub-Tenon MMC injection is noninferior to intraoperative MMC-soaked sponges in trabeculectomy surgery in terms of surgical failure and IOP control, with a reduced number of medications, improved bleb morphology, and similar safety profile. Further research with a long-term follow-up is necessary to confirm their long-term equivalence.

Financial Disclosure(s)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
小梁切除术中给予丝裂霉素C的方法比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
题目:比较小梁切除术中不同方法给药丝裂霉素C (MMC)。临床意义:了解应用MMC的最佳方法可以为青光眼外科医生提供指导并改善预后。方法:系统回顾和荟萃分析(PROSPERO CRD42023394371)对截至2023年2月22日发表于Medline、EMBASE和CENTRAL的比较≥2种方法应用MMC的小梁切除术的研究。随机临床试验(rct)、准随机和前瞻性非随机对照研究均以英文发表,并在人类受试者中进行。主要结果为手术失败。次要结局包括眼内压(IOP)、青光眼药物数量、术后并发症和干预措施。采用ROB2.0和ROBINS-I工具评估偏倚风险。≥3项研究采用随机效应荟萃分析,2项研究采用固定效应模型。证据的确定性以GRADE评分评估。结果:从7899份记录中,来自7项随机对照试验的8篇文章比较了术中亚腱MMC注射(315名受试者)和术中MMC浸泡海绵(327名受试者)。一项RCT和一项准随机研究比较了术后(60名参与者)和术中(60名参与者)mmc浸泡海绵的应用。在注射与海绵的比较中,手术失败无显著差异(相对危险度[RR]: 0.78, 95%可信区间[CI]: 0.48, 1.28;p=0.33, GRADE评分中等)或IOP(平均差[MD]: -0.85 mmHg, 95%CI: -2.19, 0.49;p=0.21, GRADE评分中等)。亚腱注射减少了术后用药(MD: -0.40, 95%CI: -0.63, -0.18;结论:在小梁切除术中,术中亚tenon MMC注射与术中MMC浸泡海绵相比,在手术失败和IOP控制方面不差于术中MMC浸泡海绵,用药次数减少,水泡形态改善,安全性相似。需要进一步的长期随访研究来证实它们的长期等效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ophthalmology. Glaucoma
Ophthalmology. Glaucoma OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
6.90%
发文量
140
审稿时长
46 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信