Mingsheng Hong, Yaling Peng, Yuan Lai, Qingqing Zheng, Chaoyang Hong
{"title":"Aurolab水性引流植入物与Ahmed青光眼瓣膜治疗难治性青光眼的比较：荟萃分析。","authors":"Mingsheng Hong, Yaling Peng, Yuan Lai, Qingqing Zheng, Chaoyang Hong","doi":"10.1159/000529039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) is a common surgical method for the treatment of refractory glaucoma.Aurolab aqueous drainage implant (AADI) is a novel surgical method which has been applied in clinical practice in recent years.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the AADI and the AGV for the treatment of refractory glaucoma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We comprehensively searched four databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases, selecting the relevant studies. The continuous variables, namely, intraocular pressure reduction (IOPR) and a reduction in antiglaucoma medication (AGMR), were pooled by the weighted mean differences (WMDs), and the dichotomous outcomes, including success rates and complications, were pooled by the odds ratio (OR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 825 eyes from 820 patients from six studies were included. The WMDs of the IOPR between the AADI and the AGV implant were 0.58 (95% CI: 0.07-1.09) at 3 months, 0.44 (95% CI: 0.11-0.77) at 6 months, 2.20 (95% CI: 0.63-3.77) at 12 months, and 3.24 (95% CI: 1.73-4.75) at follow-up endpoint. Significant difference was detected between the two groups at any point in time. The WMDs of the AGMR between the AADI and the AGV implant were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.61-1.13) at 6 months, 1.04 (95% CI: 0.66-1.42) at 12 months, and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.52-1.34) at the follow-up endpoint; the differences reached statistical significance at any point in time. The pooled ORs comparing the AADI with the AGV were 3.64 (95% CI: 2.44-5.45) for the complete success rate and 1.72 (95% CI: 1.24-2.39) for qualified success rate; significant difference was detected between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the AADI and the AGV implant on the rates of adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The AADI is more effective in both its surgical success rate and reducing IOP and AGM. And the two implants may have comparable incidences of adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":19662,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Aurolab Aqueous Drainage Implant with Ahmed Glaucoma Valve for Refractory Glaucoma: A Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Mingsheng Hong, Yaling Peng, Yuan Lai, Qingqing Zheng, Chaoyang Hong\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000529039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) is a common surgical method for the treatment of refractory glaucoma.Aurolab aqueous drainage implant (AADI) is a novel surgical method which has been applied in clinical practice in recent years.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the AADI and the AGV for the treatment of refractory glaucoma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We comprehensively searched four databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases, selecting the relevant studies. The continuous variables, namely, intraocular pressure reduction (IOPR) and a reduction in antiglaucoma medication (AGMR), were pooled by the weighted mean differences (WMDs), and the dichotomous outcomes, including success rates and complications, were pooled by the odds ratio (OR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 825 eyes from 820 patients from six studies were included. The WMDs of the IOPR between the AADI and the AGV implant were 0.58 (95% CI: 0.07-1.09) at 3 months, 0.44 (95% CI: 0.11-0.77) at 6 months, 2.20 (95% CI: 0.63-3.77) at 12 months, and 3.24 (95% CI: 1.73-4.75) at follow-up endpoint. Significant difference was detected between the two groups at any point in time. The WMDs of the AGMR between the AADI and the AGV implant were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.61-1.13) at 6 months, 1.04 (95% CI: 0.66-1.42) at 12 months, and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.52-1.34) at the follow-up endpoint; the differences reached statistical significance at any point in time. The pooled ORs comparing the AADI with the AGV were 3.64 (95% CI: 2.44-5.45) for the complete success rate and 1.72 (95% CI: 1.24-2.39) for qualified success rate; significant difference was detected between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the AADI and the AGV implant on the rates of adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The AADI is more effective in both its surgical success rate and reducing IOP and AGM. And the two implants may have comparable incidences of adverse events.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ophthalmic Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ophthalmic Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000529039\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000529039","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景：Ahmed青光眼瓣膜（AGV）是治疗难治性青光眼的常用手术方法。Aurolab水性引流植入物（AADI）是近年来临床应用的一种新型手术方法。目的：比较AADI和AGV治疗难治性青光眼的疗效和安全性。方法：综合检索PubMed、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane Library四个数据库，选择相关研究。连续变量，即眼压降低（IOPR）和抗青光眼药物减少（AGMR），通过加权平均差（WMD）合并，并通过比值比（OR）合并包括成功率和并发症在内的二分结果。AADI和AGV植入物之间的IOPR在3个月时的WMD为0.58（95%CI:0.07-1.09），在6个月时为0.44（95%CI:0.11-0.77），在12个月时是2.20（95%CI:0.63-3.77），在随访终点时是3.24（95%CI:1.73-4.75）。在任何时间点，两组之间都检测到显著差异。AADI和AGV植入物之间的AGMR在6个月时的WMD为0.87（95%CI:0.61-13），在12个月时为1.04（95%CI:0.66-1.42），在随访终点为0.93（95%CI:0.52-1.34）；差异在任何时间点都达到统计学显著性。比较AADI和AGV的合并OR，完全成功率为3.64（95%CI:2.44-5.45），合格成功率为1.72（95%CI:1.24-2.39）；两组比较有显著性差异。AADI和AGV植入物在不良事件发生率方面没有显著差异。结论：AADI在手术成功率、降低眼压和AGM方面更为有效。两种植入物的不良事件发生率可能相当。
Comparison of Aurolab Aqueous Drainage Implant with Ahmed Glaucoma Valve for Refractory Glaucoma: A Meta-Analysis.
Background: Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) is a common surgical method for the treatment of refractory glaucoma.Aurolab aqueous drainage implant (AADI) is a novel surgical method which has been applied in clinical practice in recent years.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the AADI and the AGV for the treatment of refractory glaucoma.
Methods: We comprehensively searched four databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases, selecting the relevant studies. The continuous variables, namely, intraocular pressure reduction (IOPR) and a reduction in antiglaucoma medication (AGMR), were pooled by the weighted mean differences (WMDs), and the dichotomous outcomes, including success rates and complications, were pooled by the odds ratio (OR).
Results: A total of 825 eyes from 820 patients from six studies were included. The WMDs of the IOPR between the AADI and the AGV implant were 0.58 (95% CI: 0.07-1.09) at 3 months, 0.44 (95% CI: 0.11-0.77) at 6 months, 2.20 (95% CI: 0.63-3.77) at 12 months, and 3.24 (95% CI: 1.73-4.75) at follow-up endpoint. Significant difference was detected between the two groups at any point in time. The WMDs of the AGMR between the AADI and the AGV implant were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.61-1.13) at 6 months, 1.04 (95% CI: 0.66-1.42) at 12 months, and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.52-1.34) at the follow-up endpoint; the differences reached statistical significance at any point in time. The pooled ORs comparing the AADI with the AGV were 3.64 (95% CI: 2.44-5.45) for the complete success rate and 1.72 (95% CI: 1.24-2.39) for qualified success rate; significant difference was detected between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the AADI and the AGV implant on the rates of adverse events.
Conclusions: The AADI is more effective in both its surgical success rate and reducing IOP and AGM. And the two implants may have comparable incidences of adverse events.
期刊介绍：
''Ophthalmic Research'' features original papers and reviews reporting on translational and clinical studies. Authors from throughout the world cover research topics on every field in connection with physical, physiologic, pharmacological, biochemical and molecular biological aspects of ophthalmology. This journal also aims to provide a record of international clinical research for both researchers and clinicians in ophthalmology. Finally, the transfer of information from fundamental research to clinical research and clinical practice is particularly welcome.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
