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

Abstract

BACKGROUND\nGlaucoma is one of the leading largely preventable causes of blindness in the world. It is usually \xa0addressed first medically with topical intraocular pressure-lowering drops or by laser trabeculoplasty. In cases where such treatment fails, glaucoma-filtering surgery such as trabeculectomy, is commonly considered. Surgeons can differ in their technique when performing trabeculectomy, for example, the choice of the type of the conjunctival flap (fornix- or limbal-based). In a fornix-based flap, the surgical wound is performed at the corneal limbus; while in a limbal-based flap, the incision is further away. Many studies in the literature compare fornix- and limbal-based trabeculectomy with respect to outcomes and complications.\n\n\nOBJECTIVES\nTo assess the comparative effectiveness of fornix- versus limbal-based conjunctival flaps in trabeculectomy for adult glaucoma, with a specific focus on intraocular pressure (IOP) control and complication rates (adverse effects).\n\n\nSEARCH METHODS\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 23 March 2021. There were no restrictions to language or year of publication.\n\n\nSELECTION CRITERIA\nWe included RCTs comparing the benefits and complications of fornix- versus limbal-based trabeculectomy for glaucoma, irrespective of glaucoma type, publication status, and language. We excluded studies on children less than 18 years of age, since wound healing is different in this age group and the rate of bleb scarring postoperatively is high.\n\n\nDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS\nWe used standard methodological procedures as per Cochrane criteria.\xa0 MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new eligible studies for this review update. As presented in the original\xa0review, we included six trials with a total of 361 participants. Two studies were conducted in the USA and one each in Germany, Greece, India, and Saudi Arabia. The participants of four trials had open-angle glaucoma; one study included participants with primary open-angle or primary closed-angle glaucoma, and one study did not specify the type of glaucoma. Three studies used a combined procedure (phacotrabeculectomy). Trabeculectomy with mitomycin C (MMC) was performed in four studies, and trabeculectomy with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was performed in only one study. None of the included trials reported trabeculectomy failure at 24 months. Only one trial reported the failure rate of trabeculectomy as a late complication. Failure was higher among participants randomised to the limbal-based surgery: 1/50 eyes failed trabeculectomy in the fornix group compared with 3/50 in the limbal group (Peto odds ratio \xa00.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 2.61)); therefore we are very uncertain as to the relative effect of the two procedures on failure rate. Four studies including 252 participants provided measures of mean IOP at 12 months. In the fornix-based surgeries, mean IOP ranged from 12.5 to 15.5 mmHg and similar results were noted in limbal-based surgeries with mean IOP ranging from 11.7 to 15.1 mmHg without significant difference. Mean difference was 0.44 mmHg (95% CI -0.45 to 1.33; 247 eyes) and 0.86 mmHg, (95% CI -0.52 to 2.24; 139 eyes) at 12 and 24 months of follow-up, respectively. Neither of these pooled analyses showed a statistically significant difference in IOP between groups (moderate certainty evidence). One trial reported number of anti-glaucoma medications at 24 months of follow-up with no difference noted between surgical groups. However, three trials reported the mean number of anti-glaucoma medications at 12 months of follow-up without significant difference in the mean number of postoperative IOP-lowering medications between the two surgical techniques. Mean difference was 0.02, (95% CI -0.15 to 0.19) at 12 months of follow-up (high certainty evidence). Because of the small numbers of events and total participants, the risk of many reported adverse events was uncertain and those that were found to be statistically significant may have been due to chance. For risk of bias assessment: although all six trials were randomised selection bias was mostly unclear, with unclear random sequence generation in four of the six studies and unclear allocation concealment in five of the six studies. Attrition bias was encountered in only one trial which also suffered from reporting bias. All other trials had an unclear risk of reporting bias as there was no access to study protocols. All included trials were judged to have high risk of detection bias due to lack of masking of the outcomes. Trabeculectomy is quite a standard procedure and unlikely to induce bias due to surgeon performance , hence performance bias was not evaluated.\n\n\nAUTHORS CONCLUSIONS\nThe main result of this review was that there was uncertainty as to the difference between fornix- and limbal-based trabeculectomy surgeries due to the small number of events and confidence intervals that cross the null. This also applied to postoperative complications, but without any impact on long-term failure rate between the two surgical techniques.