Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Ultrasound Cycloplasty (UCP) versus Ahmed Glaucoma Valve (AGV) implantation in the treatment of neovascular glaucoma.</p> Methods <p>A total of 80 patients (80 eyes) were enrolled and assigned to receive either UCP or AGV treatment (40 eyes each). Patients were followed up for 6 months postoperatively. Intraocular pressure (IOP), number of IOP-lowering medications, pain score, visual acuity, and complications were recorded. Complete surgical success was defined as an IOP reduction of ≥ 20% from baseline and maintained between 5 and 21 mmHg, without the need for additional medications or further surgery.</p> Results <p>Preoperative baseline characteristics showed no significant differences between the two groups. On postoperative day 1, the AGV group showed a greater reduction in IOP compared to the UCP group (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). At 6 months postoperatively, the UCP group demonstrated better outcomes in terms of the IOP reduction rate (61.62% vs. 66.97%, <i>p</i> = 0.04) and pain score (0.13 vs. 0.43, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01) compared to the AGV group. There were no significant differences between the groups in the number of medications used or the rate of surgical success. The AGV group experienced more complications, commonly including tube blockage and plate exposure.</p> Conclusion <p>Both UCP and AGV are effective in reducing IOP. However, UCP resulted in more stable postoperative IOP, fewer complications, and offered better safety and patient comfort.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Efficacy and safety of ultrasound cycloplasty versus ahmed glaucoma valve for neovascular glaucoma

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月19日

查看全文
  • Shuang Zhang,
  • Shulian Ji,
  • Xiaolin Li,
  • Shanshan Hu,
  • Yanjiang Fu

摘要

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Ultrasound Cycloplasty (UCP) versus Ahmed Glaucoma Valve (AGV) implantation in the treatment of neovascular glaucoma.

Methods

A total of 80 patients (80 eyes) were enrolled and assigned to receive either UCP or AGV treatment (40 eyes each). Patients were followed up for 6 months postoperatively. Intraocular pressure (IOP), number of IOP-lowering medications, pain score, visual acuity, and complications were recorded. Complete surgical success was defined as an IOP reduction of ≥ 20% from baseline and maintained between 5 and 21 mmHg, without the need for additional medications or further surgery.

Results

Preoperative baseline characteristics showed no significant differences between the two groups. On postoperative day 1, the AGV group showed a greater reduction in IOP compared to the UCP group (p < 0.01). At 6 months postoperatively, the UCP group demonstrated better outcomes in terms of the IOP reduction rate (61.62% vs. 66.97%, p = 0.04) and pain score (0.13 vs. 0.43, p < 0.01) compared to the AGV group. There were no significant differences between the groups in the number of medications used or the rate of surgical success. The AGV group experienced more complications, commonly including tube blockage and plate exposure.

Conclusion

Both UCP and AGV are effective in reducing IOP. However, UCP resulted in more stable postoperative IOP, fewer complications, and offered better safety and patient comfort.