Amanjeet Sandhu, Hari Jayaram, Kuang Hu, Catey Bunce, Gus Gazzard
{"title":"开角型青光眼的眼内微支架手术。","authors":"Amanjeet Sandhu, Hari Jayaram, Kuang Hu, Catey Bunce, Gus Gazzard","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD012802.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Glaucoma is the leading cause of global irreversible blindness, often associated with raised intraocular pressure (IOP). Where medical or laser treatment has failed or is not tolerated, surgery is often required. Minimally-invasive surgical approaches have been developed in recent years to reduce IOP with lower surgical risks. Supraciliary microstent surgery for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) is one such approach.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of supraciliary microstent surgery for the treatment of OAG, and to compare with standard medical, laser or surgical treatments.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2020, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 27 August 2020.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of supraciliary microstent surgery, alone or with cataract surgery, compared to other surgical treatments (cataract surgery alone, other minimally invasive glaucoma device techniques, trabeculectomy), laser treatment or medical treatment.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts from the database search to identify studies that met the selection criteria. Data extraction, analysis, and evaluation of risk of bias from selected studies was performed independently and according to standard Cochrane methodology.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>One study met the inclusion criteria of this review, evaluating the efficacy and safety of the Cypass supraciliary microstent surgery for the treatment of OAG, comparing phacoemulsification + supraciliary microstent surgery with phacoemulsification alone over 24 months. This study comprised 505 eyes of 505 participants with both OAG and cataract, 374 randomised to the phacoemulsification + microstent group. In this study, the perceived risk of bias from random sequence generation, allocation concealment and selective reporting was low. However, we considered the study to be at high risk of performance bias as surgeons/investigators were unmasked. Attrition bias was unclear, with 448/505 participants contributing to per protocol analysis. Insertion of a Cypass supraciliary microstent combined with phacoemulsification probably increases the proportion of participants who are medication-free (not using eye-drops) at 24 months compared with phacoemulsification alone (85% versus 59%, risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.49, moderate-certainty evidence). There is high-certainty evidence that a greater improvement in mean IOP occurs in the phacoemulsification + microstent group - mean (SD) change in IOP from baseline of -5.4 (3.9) mmHg in the phacoemulsification group, compared to -7.4 (4.4) mmHg in the phacoemulsification + microstent group at 24 months (mean difference -2.0 mmHg, 95% CI -2.85 to -1.15). There is moderate-certainty evidence that insertion of a microstent is probably associated with a greater reduction in use of IOP-lowering drops (mean reduction of 0.7 medications in the phacoemulsification group, compared to a mean reduction of 1.2 medications in the phacoemulsification + microstent group). Insertion of a microstent during phacoemulsification may reduce the requirement for further glaucoma intervention to control IOP at a later stage compared to phacoemulsification alone (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.04, low-certainty evidence). There is no evidence relating to the rate of visual field progression, or proportion of participants whose visual field loss progressed in this study. There is moderate-certainty evidence showing little or no difference in the proportion of participants experiencing postoperative complications over 24 months between participants in the microstent group compared to those who received phacoemulsification alone (RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.4). Five year post-approval data regarding the safety of the Cypass supraciliary microstent showed increased endothelial cell loss, associated with the position of the microstent in the anterior chamber. There were no reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in the included study.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Data from this single RCT show superiority of supraciliary microstent surgery when combined with phacoemulsification compared to phacoemulsification alone in achieving medication-free control of OAG. However, there are long-term safety concerns with the device used in this trial, relating to the observed significant loss of corneal endothelial cells at five years following device implantation. At the time of this review, this device has been withdrawn from the market. This review has found that few high-quality studies exist comparing supraciliary microstent surgery to standard medical, laser or surgical glaucoma treatments. This should be addressed by further appropriately designed RCTs with sufficient long-term follow-up to ensure robust safety data are obtained. Consideration of health-related quality of life outcomes should also feature in trial design.</p>","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":" ","pages":"CD012802"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/14651858.CD012802.pub2","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ab interno supraciliary microstent surgery for open-angle glaucoma.\",\"authors\":\"Amanjeet Sandhu, Hari Jayaram, Kuang Hu, Catey Bunce, Gus Gazzard\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD012802.pub2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Glaucoma is the leading cause of global irreversible blindness, often associated with raised intraocular pressure (IOP). Where medical or laser treatment has failed or is not tolerated, surgery is often required. Minimally-invasive surgical approaches have been developed in recent years to reduce IOP with lower surgical risks. Supraciliary microstent surgery for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) is one such approach.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of supraciliary microstent surgery for the treatment of OAG, and to compare with standard medical, laser or surgical treatments.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2020, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 27 August 2020.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of supraciliary microstent surgery, alone or with cataract surgery, compared to other surgical treatments (cataract surgery alone, other minimally invasive glaucoma device techniques, trabeculectomy), laser treatment or medical treatment.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts from the database search to identify studies that met the selection criteria. Data extraction, analysis, and evaluation of risk of bias from selected studies was performed independently and according to standard Cochrane methodology.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>One study met the inclusion criteria of this review, evaluating the efficacy and safety of the Cypass supraciliary microstent surgery for the treatment of OAG, comparing phacoemulsification + supraciliary microstent surgery with phacoemulsification alone over 24 months. This study comprised 505 eyes of 505 participants with both OAG and cataract, 374 randomised to the phacoemulsification + microstent group. In this study, the perceived risk of bias from random sequence generation, allocation concealment and selective reporting was low. However, we considered the study to be at high risk of performance bias as surgeons/investigators were unmasked. Attrition bias was unclear, with 448/505 participants contributing to per protocol analysis. Insertion of a Cypass supraciliary microstent combined with phacoemulsification probably increases the proportion of participants who are medication-free (not using eye-drops) at 24 months compared with phacoemulsification alone (85% versus 59%, risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.49, moderate-certainty evidence). There is high-certainty evidence that a greater improvement in mean IOP occurs in the phacoemulsification + microstent group - mean (SD) change in IOP from baseline of -5.4 (3.9) mmHg in the phacoemulsification group, compared to -7.4 (4.4) mmHg in the phacoemulsification + microstent group at 24 months (mean difference -2.0 mmHg, 95% CI -2.85 to -1.15). There is moderate-certainty evidence that insertion of a microstent is probably associated with a greater reduction in use of IOP-lowering drops (mean reduction of 0.7 medications in the phacoemulsification group, compared to a mean reduction of 1.2 medications in the phacoemulsification + microstent group). Insertion of a microstent during phacoemulsification may reduce the requirement for further glaucoma intervention to control IOP at a later stage compared to phacoemulsification alone (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.04, low-certainty evidence). There is no evidence relating to the rate of visual field progression, or proportion of participants whose visual field loss progressed in this study. There is moderate-certainty evidence showing little or no difference in the proportion of participants experiencing postoperative complications over 24 months between participants in the microstent group compared to those who received phacoemulsification alone (RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.4). Five year post-approval data regarding the safety of the Cypass supraciliary microstent showed increased endothelial cell loss, associated with the position of the microstent in the anterior chamber. There were no reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in the included study.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Data from this single RCT show superiority of supraciliary microstent surgery when combined with phacoemulsification compared to phacoemulsification alone in achieving medication-free control of OAG. However, there are long-term safety concerns with the device used in this trial, relating to the observed significant loss of corneal endothelial cells at five years following device implantation. At the time of this review, this device has been withdrawn from the market. This review has found that few high-quality studies exist comparing supraciliary microstent surgery to standard medical, laser or surgical glaucoma treatments. This should be addressed by further appropriately designed RCTs with sufficient long-term follow-up to ensure robust safety data are obtained. Consideration of health-related quality of life outcomes should also feature in trial design.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":515753,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"CD012802\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/14651858.CD012802.pub2\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012802.pub2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012802.pub2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:青光眼是全球不可逆失明的主要原因,通常与眼压升高有关。当药物或激光治疗失败或不能耐受时,通常需要手术。微创手术入路近年来得到发展,以降低手术风险降低IOP。睫上微支架手术治疗开角型青光眼(OAG)就是其中一种方法。目的:评价睫上微支架手术治疗OAG的疗效和安全性,并与标准内科、激光或外科治疗方法进行比较。检索方法:检索Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central;其中包含Cochrane眼睛和视力试验注册;2020,第8期);奥维德MEDLINE;奥维德Embase;ISRCTN登记处;clinicaltrials。gov和WHO ICTRP。搜索日期为2020年8月27日。选择标准:我们检索了与其他外科治疗(单独白内障手术、其他微创青光眼装置技术、小梁切除术)、激光治疗或药物治疗相比,单独或联合白内障手术的睫上微支架手术的随机对照试验(RCTs)。数据收集和分析:两位综述作者从数据库搜索中独立筛选标题和摘要,以确定符合选择标准的研究。所选研究的数据提取、分析和偏倚风险评估均按照标准Cochrane方法学独立进行。主要结果:1项研究符合本综述的纳入标准,评价了Cypass睫上微支架手术治疗OAG的疗效和安全性,比较了超声乳化+睫上微支架手术与单纯超声乳化手术24个月的疗效和安全性。本研究包括505只OAG和白内障患者的505只眼睛,其中374只随机分为超声乳化+微支架组。在本研究中,随机序列生成、分配隐藏和选择性报告的感知偏倚风险较低。然而,我们认为该研究存在较高的表现偏倚风险,因为外科医生/研究者是公开的。流失偏差尚不清楚,每个方案分析有448/505名参与者。与单纯超声乳化术相比,植入Cypass睫上微支架联合超声乳化术可能会增加24个月无药物(不使用眼药水)的参与者比例(85%对59%,风险比(RR) 1.27, 95%可信区间(CI) 1.09至1.49,中等确定性证据)。有高度肯定的证据表明,超声乳化+微支架组的平均IOP有更大的改善——24个月时,超声乳化组的IOP从基线平均(SD)变化为-5.4 (3.9)mmHg,而超声乳化+微支架组的平均(SD)变化为-7.4 (4.4)mmHg(平均差异-2.0 mmHg, 95% CI -2.85至-1.15)。有中等确定性的证据表明,植入微支架可能与降低眼压滴剂使用的更大减少有关(超声乳化组平均减少0.7种药物,而超声乳化+微支架组平均减少1.2种药物)。与单纯超声乳化术相比,在超声乳化术期间植入微支架可减少进一步青光眼干预以控制后期IOP的需求(RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07至1.04,低确定性证据)。在这项研究中,没有证据表明视野进展的速度,或参与者视野丧失进展的比例。有中等确定性的证据表明,在24个月内,微支架组与单纯超声乳化术组相比,出现术后并发症的比例几乎没有差异(RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8 ~ 1.4)。Cypass睫状体上微支架批准后5年的安全性数据显示,内皮细胞损失增加,与微支架在前房的位置有关。纳入的研究中没有与健康相关的生活质量(HRQoL)结果的报道。作者的结论:该单一随机对照试验的数据显示,在实现OAG的无药物控制方面,与单纯超声乳化相比,睫上微支架联合超声乳化手术具有优势。然而,在这项试验中使用的设备存在长期的安全性问题,涉及到在设备植入5年后观察到的角膜内皮细胞的显著损失。在本次审查时,该设备已从市场上撤回。本综述发现,很少有高质量的研究将睫状体上微支架手术与标准的药物、激光或手术青光眼治疗进行比较。 这应该通过进一步适当设计的随机对照试验来解决,并进行足够的长期随访,以确保获得可靠的安全性数据。在试验设计中也应考虑与健康相关的生活质量结果。
Ab interno supraciliary microstent surgery for open-angle glaucoma.
Background: Glaucoma is the leading cause of global irreversible blindness, often associated with raised intraocular pressure (IOP). Where medical or laser treatment has failed or is not tolerated, surgery is often required. Minimally-invasive surgical approaches have been developed in recent years to reduce IOP with lower surgical risks. Supraciliary microstent surgery for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) is one such approach.
Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of supraciliary microstent surgery for the treatment of OAG, and to compare with standard medical, laser or surgical treatments.
Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2020, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 27 August 2020.
Selection criteria: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of supraciliary microstent surgery, alone or with cataract surgery, compared to other surgical treatments (cataract surgery alone, other minimally invasive glaucoma device techniques, trabeculectomy), laser treatment or medical treatment.
Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts from the database search to identify studies that met the selection criteria. Data extraction, analysis, and evaluation of risk of bias from selected studies was performed independently and according to standard Cochrane methodology.
Main results: One study met the inclusion criteria of this review, evaluating the efficacy and safety of the Cypass supraciliary microstent surgery for the treatment of OAG, comparing phacoemulsification + supraciliary microstent surgery with phacoemulsification alone over 24 months. This study comprised 505 eyes of 505 participants with both OAG and cataract, 374 randomised to the phacoemulsification + microstent group. In this study, the perceived risk of bias from random sequence generation, allocation concealment and selective reporting was low. However, we considered the study to be at high risk of performance bias as surgeons/investigators were unmasked. Attrition bias was unclear, with 448/505 participants contributing to per protocol analysis. Insertion of a Cypass supraciliary microstent combined with phacoemulsification probably increases the proportion of participants who are medication-free (not using eye-drops) at 24 months compared with phacoemulsification alone (85% versus 59%, risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.49, moderate-certainty evidence). There is high-certainty evidence that a greater improvement in mean IOP occurs in the phacoemulsification + microstent group - mean (SD) change in IOP from baseline of -5.4 (3.9) mmHg in the phacoemulsification group, compared to -7.4 (4.4) mmHg in the phacoemulsification + microstent group at 24 months (mean difference -2.0 mmHg, 95% CI -2.85 to -1.15). There is moderate-certainty evidence that insertion of a microstent is probably associated with a greater reduction in use of IOP-lowering drops (mean reduction of 0.7 medications in the phacoemulsification group, compared to a mean reduction of 1.2 medications in the phacoemulsification + microstent group). Insertion of a microstent during phacoemulsification may reduce the requirement for further glaucoma intervention to control IOP at a later stage compared to phacoemulsification alone (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.04, low-certainty evidence). There is no evidence relating to the rate of visual field progression, or proportion of participants whose visual field loss progressed in this study. There is moderate-certainty evidence showing little or no difference in the proportion of participants experiencing postoperative complications over 24 months between participants in the microstent group compared to those who received phacoemulsification alone (RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.4). Five year post-approval data regarding the safety of the Cypass supraciliary microstent showed increased endothelial cell loss, associated with the position of the microstent in the anterior chamber. There were no reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in the included study.
Authors' conclusions: Data from this single RCT show superiority of supraciliary microstent surgery when combined with phacoemulsification compared to phacoemulsification alone in achieving medication-free control of OAG. However, there are long-term safety concerns with the device used in this trial, relating to the observed significant loss of corneal endothelial cells at five years following device implantation. At the time of this review, this device has been withdrawn from the market. This review has found that few high-quality studies exist comparing supraciliary microstent surgery to standard medical, laser or surgical glaucoma treatments. This should be addressed by further appropriately designed RCTs with sufficient long-term follow-up to ensure robust safety data are obtained. Consideration of health-related quality of life outcomes should also feature in trial design.