Indian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology

Print ISSN: 2395-1443

Online ISSN: 2395-1451

CODEN : IJCEKF

Indian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (IJCEO) is open access, a peer-reviewed medical journal, published quarterly, online, and in print, by the Innovative Education and Scientific Research Foundation (IESRF) since 2015. To fulfil our aim of rapid dissemination of knowledge, we publish articles ‘Ahead of Print’ on acceptance. In addition, the journal allows free access (Open Access) to its content, which is likely to attract more readers and citations of articles published in IJCEO. Manuscripts must be prepared in more...

  • Article highlights
  • Article tables
  • Article images

Article statistics

Viewed: 124

PDF Downloaded: 38


Get Permission Desinayak and Shree: Effect of trabeculectomy with mitomycin C versus ologen implant in reducing intraocular pressure: A comparative study in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma


Introduction

Intraocular pressure (IOP) increase is a major risk factor for a group of diseases characterized by unique optic neuropathy and concurrent visual field loss which is termed glaucoma.1 Primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) is the most common sub type of glaucoma worldwide.2, 3, 4 In primary glaucoma, IOP is the only established modifiable risk factor and multiple clinical trials have demonstrated that lowering IOP slows the progression of visual field loss in glaucoma patient.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 A range of therapeutic approaches, including medications (topical and systemic), laser therapy and surgery, can be used alone or in combination to achieve target IOP in glaucoma patient.11 In POAG, although medical management is the first line of treatment, surgery indicated when IOP is not well controlled with maximal medical therapy.

Trabeculectomy continues to be the most preferred surgical procedure for lowering IOP in primary glaucoma patients.12, 13, 14 Although, the first successful Trabeculectomy was first documented by Cairns,15 different modifications at some steps are still being carried out today in consideration of its safety and efficacy. Trabeculectomy with mitomycin C (MMC) and Trabeculectomy with Ologen implant (OLO) are two methods used to improve surgical success rate by reducing scaring at the operative site and improving long term outcomes.16, 17, 18, 19 The anti metabolite medication MMC is used in the Trabeculectomy in MMC method. It can be used topically or sub conjunctival to the surgical site to inhibit fibroblast proliferation and reduce scarring. 20 This approach improves Trabeculectomy success rates and aids in maintaining the desired IOP by minimizing scar tissue formation.21 Trabeculectomy with OLO, on the other hand, employs a biodegradable, porous and collagen-based implant OLO. It is considered as a viable alternative to patient contraindicated to antimetabolites.22 The OLO not only acts as a spacer to reduce wound contraction but also acts as a scaffold for the growth of fibroblast to help in tissue remodeling and reduce Subconjunctival scar formation, thereby improving the long-term success of Trabeculectomy with fewer bleb related complications.23

Subconjunctival fibrosis, continues to be the main reason for Trabeculectomy failure and is more frequently seen in Asia and Afro-Caribbean eyes.24, 25, 26 When comparing the efficiency of MMC or OLO implants, studies undertaken all across the world have yielded inconsistent results.16, 27, 28, 29 The current study’s goal is to determine the efficacy of Trabeculectomy with MMC and OLO implant in patients with POAG in the eastern part of India.

Materials and Methods

The current study was conducted in a tertiary eye care center of eastern India, from November 2019 to April 2021, for a period of 18 months. It was a hospital based randomized prospective parallel group comparative study, approved by the hospital’s ethics committee and carried out as per the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was signed from all participant and their confidentiality was maintained throughout the study.

Patients with POAG, attending out-patient department of the hospital, aged between 18 and 80 years were enrolled in the study. Inclusion criteria was patient with inadequate IOP control (IOP >21 mmHg) or progression of visual field loss despite the maximum tolerated medical therapy. We excluded patients with normal tension glaucoma, advanced glaucoma with split fixation of the visual field and history of any intraocular surgery or ocular trauma. Patients with history of any acute or chronic diseases e.g., immunodeficiency, connective tissue disorders and use of any systemic or topical medication that can affect the study outcome were excluded from study. Forty eyes of the forty patients were included in the study and divided into two groups of twenty. MMC or OLO was used as per randomization, using Graph Pad random number generator. We used MMC in a concentration of 0.4 mg/mL and the OLO implant model 830601 in this study.

Each patient was assigned a registration number. Along with the demographic profile, detailed systemic and treatment history, including the number and types of anti glaucoma medications, were recorded. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was recorded using Snellen’s visual acuity chart. Each patient underwent comprehensive eye examination with slit lamp biomicroscope. A regularly calibrated Goldman Applanation Tonometer was used to measure the IOP. Gonioscopy with Sussmann four mirror gonioscope was performed to ensure cases included in the study were open anterior chamber angle. Fundus examination by 90 D lens and standard automated perimetry (Humphrey Field Analyzer, HFA II 750; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.) using 24‐2 SITA standard protocol and 10‐2 programme where indicated, was performed in each patient.

Preoperatively all patients received an intravenous infusion of 20% mannitol as per body weight. All the patients were operated by a single surgeon under local peribulbar anaesthesia. A superior rectus bridle suture was applied. The fornix‐based conjunctival flap was made superiorly with blunt tipped Westcott scissors. After light cauterization with bipolar cautery, a partial thickness triangular scleral flap (4×4 mm) was constructed, encompassing approximately two‐thirds of the scleral thickness. In the MMC group, sponges soaked with 0.4 mg/ mL MMC were applied over a wide area under the conjunctiva. After two minutes, the sponges removed and the area was thoroughly washed with 25 cc of a balanced saline solution. A side port was created with a 15‐degree angled knife. A trabecular block of 2×2 mm was removed under the scleral flap using the side port knife and Kelly Descemet's punch. Through the trabeculectomy opening, a broad based peripheral iridectomy was done parallel to the limbus with Vanna's scissors. The scleral flap was closed using two 10‐0 mono filament nylon sutures with minimal tension, one at each arm and one releasable suture (Kolker's technique) at the apex. In patients randomly assigned to receive Ologen, trabeculectomy was made similarly without MMC. A cylindrical Ologen implant (6 mm in diameter by 2 mm in height) placed on top of the sutured scleral flap, under the conjunctiva. In both the groups, the conjunctival flap was secured to the limbus with the 8‐ 0 vicryl suture (one at each extremity and one in the center). At the end of the procedure, bleb titration was performed via side port wound to ensure water tight suturing.

Postoperatively all eyes were treated with Moxifloxacin 0.5% eye drops six times per day for four weeks, Homide eye drops twice daily for one week and Prednisolone acetate 1% eye drops were applied eight times daily for the first week, then tapered over the course of six weeks. On the first post postoperative day and at subsequent followups at one week, one month, three months and six months after surgery, BCVA, IOP and any complications encountered were recorded.

Statistical analysis

The collected data were organized in an Excel spreadsheet and analyzed using R software 4.0.3 and R‐studio. The quantitative variables were represented by the mean and standard deviation, while the qualitative data were represented by percentages and proportions. Statistical significance was defined as a p value of 0.05 or less.

Results

Forty patients were involved in the current study (Table 1). The Mean age of the patients in MMC group was 64.80±9.81 years while for OLO group mean age was 64.55±8.12 years. The age distribution between the two groups was almost similar. This indicates a homogeneous distribution of study participants between two groups. Among the patients, many of them were aged 61‐70 years old (45.00%) followed by more than 70 years old (27.50%). Only 2 patients (5.00%) were aged 41‐50 years old. In our study, twenty eight (seventy percent) patients were males and twelve (thirty percent) patients were females.

Table 1

Demographic details and preoperative intraocular pressure (IOP) of the participants of the present study

Parameters

MMC (n=20)

OLO (n=20)

Total (n=40)

p-value

Age (mean±SD)(years)

64.80±9.81

64.55±8.12

64.67±8.89

>0.05

Age groups

40-50

2 (5.00%)

0 (0.00%)

2 (5.00%)

51-60

3 (7.50%)

6 (15.00%)

9 (22.50%)

61-70

9 (22.50%)

9 (22.50%)

18 (45.00%)

>70

6 (15.00%)

5 (12.50%)

11 (27.50%)

Sex

>0.05

Female

5 (12.50%)

7 (17.50%)

12 (30.00%)

Male

15 (37.50%)

13 (32.50%)

28 (70.00%)

Preoperative IOP (mmHg)

36.95±6.68

34.70±5.24

35.83±6.03

>0.05

In (Table 1) preoperative IOP was shown in MMC group and in OLO group participants. The mean preoperative IOP among MMC intervention group was 36.95±6.68 mmHg and for OLO group was 34.70±5.24 mmHg. There was slight difference of IOP between two groups, however, this did not show statistical significance (p = 0.24).

The postoperative IOP of both groups at each visit is shown in (Table 2). On postoperative day 1, the mean IOP in MMC group was 10.05±3.65 mmHg while in OLO group it was 10.35±2.13 mmHg. At day 7, the mean IOP in MMC group was 9.45±3.0 mmHg while in OLO group it was 11.50±2.52 mmHg. At 1 month postoperative, the mean IOP in MMC group was 11.15±4.25 mmHg while in OLO group it was 11.50±5.02 mmHg. At 3 month postoperative, the mean IOP in MMC group was 12.25±5.17 mmHg while in OLO group it was 12.70±1.84 mmHg. At 6 month postoperative mean IOP in MMC group was 10.50±2.72 mmHg while in OLO group it was 13.35±2.94 mmHg.

Table 2

Postoperative intraocular pressure (mean±SD in mmHg) during the follow up period in the two groups

Follow-up period

MMC (n=20)

OLO (n=20)

P value

Day 1

10.05±3.65

10.35±2.13

0.75

Day 7

9.45±3.00

11.50±2.52

0.02

1 month

11.15±4.25

11.50±5.02

0.81

3 months

12.25±5.17

12.70±1.84

0.72

6 months

10.50±2.72

13.35±2.94

<0.01

In this study, the mean IOP at all postoperative visits was similar in two groups, except at day 7 and at 6 months where the IOP in the OLO group was significantly high. In both the MMC and OLO groups, the IOP recorded at all postoperative visit was significantly lower than the preoperative IOP (p < 0.05) (Table 2).

Discussions

Subconjunctival scarring is the well accepted limitations in preserving the hypotensive effect of trabeculectomy in glaucoma. Mitomycin C and Ologen are two adjuvants used in trabeculectomy to reduce the scarring postoperatively.19 Numerous studies comparing these two augmentation procedures for trabeculectomy have been published. In a prospective trial comparing OLO with MMC in POAG, Rosentreter et al.29 found that, OLO group had higher mean IOP at 1 month postoperatively, which was statistically significant and this difference remained for up to 12 months over the followup period. They observed that, both the IOP lowering effect and absolute success rate was significantly less in OLO group. On the other hand, Cillino et al.30 found no difference in the IOP between two groups during their follow up period. In a detailed meta analysis trial that comprised of six studies including 224 patients, comparing Ologen and MMC in trabeculectomy, did not observe statistical significance in IOP reduction between the groups.31 There were no noticeable differences in success rate, reduction in glaucoma medications and the incidence of adverse events observed between OLO and MMC groups. Senthil et al.16 in their 24 months followup comparative prospective study, observed that IOP was significantly lower at 6 months in MMC group but the difference between two groups was not so on subsequent follow up visits.

In supposition with the studies of Cillino et al.30 and Ji et al.31 the current pilot study found that the success rate of trabeculectomy was comparable in MMC and OLO groups at all follow-ups. In this hospital based, randomized, prospective, parallel group trial, although the mean postoperative IOP was significantly lower in the MMC group at the 6‐month followups (p<0.05), IOP found to be significantly reduced from baseline at all postoperative follow-ups in the both groups. Add to this observation, Tanna et al.32 in their prospective randomized multi centre clinical trial found no difference in success rate between MMC and Ologen in both trabeculectomy and combined phacoemulsification with trabeculectomy.

In this study, we observed, on day 7 the IOP was significantly higher in the OLO group, compared to the subsequent scheduled postoperative visits. This disparity could be explained by the reservoir effect of the Ologen matrix absorbing aqueous humor and pressing on the scleral flap, which provides valvular like physical resistance to over‐filtration. Consistent to these observations, Kassem et al.33 found that although reduction of IOP was significant in trabeculectomy with MMC at all postoperative visit, it was not so until 4 months in OLO group, which explains the resistance to aqueous outflow by the OLO implant in early postoperative period.

Helmers et al.28 studied the additional benefit of OLO, considering trabeculectomy with MMC the gold standard in glaucoma surgery, in their retrospective comparative study and found that both procedures significantly lower the IOP, and the addition of the OLO was considered superior to the standard trabeculectomy with MMC. Aiding to this, Paul et al.34 observed that Ologen and MMC were both effective adjunctive in their recent study on combined phaco‐trabeculectomy and noted that the IOP between the two groups did not differ during the followup period.

Conclusions

During trabeculectomy surgery, the MMC and OLO implants both successfully lower intraocular pressure. Between the two groups, there was no statistical significance in the success rates. This study limits the statistical comparison of the long-term outcomes due to shorter followup period. Additional larger studies with a longer follow-up period are needed to address the long-term efficacy of Ologen over MMC in trabeculectomy.

Source of Funding

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1 

BN Safa CA Wong J Ha CR Ethier Glaucoma and biomechanicsCurr Opin Ophthalmol20223328090

2 

N Zhang J Wang Y Li B Jiang Prevalence of primary open angle glaucoma in the last 20 years: a meta-analysis and systematic reviewSci Rep202111113762

3 

YC Tham X Li TY Wong HA Quigley T Aung CY Cheng Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysisOphthalmology201412111208190

4 

VV Kapetanakis MP Y Chan PJ Foster DG Cook CG Owen AR Rudnicka Global variations and time trends in the prevalence of primary open angle glaucoma (POAG): a systematic review and meta-analysisBr J Ophthalmol201610018693

5 

A Heijl MC Leske B Bengtsson L Hyman B Bengtsson M Hussein Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma TrialArch Ophthalmol200212010126879

6 

JL Jay SB Murray Early trabeculectomy versus conventional management in primary open angle glaucomaBr J Ophthalmol198872128819

7 

J Danias SM Podos Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal-tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study GroupAm J Ophthalmol1998126448797

8 

F Ederer DA Gaasterland LG Dally J Kim PC Vanveldhuisen B Blackwell The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 13. Comparison of treatment outcomes within race: 10-year resultsOphthalmology2004111465164

9 

J Caprioli AL Coleman Intraocular pressure fluctuation a risk factor for visual field progression at low intraocular pressures in the advanced glaucoma intervention studyOphthalmology2008115711231129.e3

10 

G Holló Wound healing and glaucoma surgery: modulating the scarring process with conventional antimetabolites and new moleculesDev Ophthalmol201759809

11 

A Garg G Gazzard Treatment choices for newly diagnosed primary open angle and ocular hypertension patientsEye (Lond)20203416071

12 

EGS Foundation European Glaucoma Society Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma, 4th Edition - Chapter 2: Classification and terminology Br J Ophthalmol2017101573127

13 

AP Wells C Bunce PT Khaw Flap and suture manipulation after trabeculectomy with adjustable sutures: titration of flow and intraocular pressure in guarded filtration surgeryJ Glaucoma20041354006

14 

A Rao RD Cruz Trabeculectomy: Does It Have a Future? Cureus2022148e27834

15 

JE Cairns Trabeculectomy: Preliminary report of a new methodAm J Ophthalmol19686646739

16 

S Senthil HL Rao JG Babu AK Mandal CS Garudadri Comparison of outcomes of trabeculectomy with mitomycin C vs. ologen implant in primary glaucomaIndian J Ophthalmol201361733842

17 

CI Perez F Mellado A Jones R Colvin Trabeculectomy Combined with Collagen Matrix Implant (Ologen)J Glaucoma2017261548

18 

VJ Chelerkar D Agrawal VK S Kalyani M Deshpande Comparison of bleb morphology by anterior segment optical coherence tomography and clinical outcome after phacotrabeculectomy with mitomycin C or Ologen implantIndian J Ophthalmol2021691027349

19 

DS Song J Qian ZJ Chen Ologen implant versus mitomycin-C for trabeculectomy: A meta-analysisMedicine (Baltimore)20199825e16094

20 

FM Wagdy HG Farahat AF Ellakwa SS Mandour Evaluation of Conjunctival Autografting Augmented with Mitomycin C Application versus Ologen Implantation in the Surgical Treatment of Recurrent PterygiumJ Ophthalmol20218820926

21 

M Wilkins A Indar R Wormald Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Intra-operative mitomycin C for glaucoma surgeryCochrane Database Syst Rev200542897

22 

K Singh M Bhattacharyya A Mutreja S Dangda Trabeculectomy with subconjunctival collagen implant in Indian eyes: Long-term resultsIndian J Ophthalmol20186610142934

23 

HS Chen R Ritch T Krupin WC Hsu Control of filtering bleb structure through tissue bioengineering: An animal modelInvest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2006471253104

24 

R Husain JC Clarke SK L Seah PT Khaw A review of trabeculectomy in East Asian people--the influence of raceEye (Lond)200519324352

25 

AGIS Investigators The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 9. Comparison of glaucoma outcomes in black and white patients within treatment groupsAm J Ophthalmol2001132331120

26 

AH Nguyen N Fatehi P Romero A Miraftabi E Kim E Morales Observational Outcomes of Initial Trabeculectomy With Mitomycin C in Patients of African Descent vs Patients of European Descent: Five-Year ResultsJAMA Ophthalmol201813610110613

27 

M Sen N Midha T Sidhu D Angmo R Sihota T Dada Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Mitomycin C Combined with Ologen Implant versus Mitomycin C Alone as Adjuvants in TrabeculectomyOphthalmol Glaucoma2018128898

28 

G Helmers C Munteanu U Löw B Seitz Trabekulektomie mit Mitomycin C und Ologen®-Implantat im Vergleich zur klassischen Trabekulektomie [Trabeculectomy with mitomycin C and Ologen® implant in comparison to classical trabeculectomyOphthalmologie20231202026German

29 

A Rosentreter AM Schild JF Jordan GK Krieglstein TS Dietlein A prospective randomised trial of trabeculectomy using mitomycin C vs an ologen implant in open angle glaucomaEye (Lond)2010249144957

30 

S Cillino A Casuccio FD Pace C Cagini LL Ferraro G Cillino Biodegradable collagen matrix implant versus mitomycin-C in trabeculectomy: five-year follow-upBMC Ophthalmol20161624

31 

Q Ji B Qi L Liu X Guo J Zhong Efficacy and Safety of Ologen Implant Versus Mitomycin C in Primary Trabeculectomy: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical TrialsJ Glaucoma20152458894

32 

AP Tanna AW Rademaker CG De Moraes DG Godfrey SR Sarkisian Jr SD Vold Collagen matrix vs mitomycin-C in trabeculectomy and combined phacoemulsification and trabeculectomy: a randomized controlled trialBMC Ophthalmol2016161217

33 

RR Kassem AF Esmael Subscleral trabeculectomy with Ologen implant versus mitomycin C in primary infantile glaucomaSaudi J of Ophthalmol2024202018

34 

C Paul J Divya R Kamal A Paul Ologen implant versus mitomycin C in combined trabeculectomy and phacoemulsificationIndian J Ophthalmol2022704124852



jats-html.xsl


This is an Open Access (OA) journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Article type

Original Article


Article page

481-485


Authors Details

Naresh Desinayak*, Pallavi Shree


Article History

Received : 10-02-2023

Accepted : 14-06-2024


Article Metrics


View Article As

 


Downlaod Files