Conjunctival thickness as a predictive imaging biomarker for the glaucoma filtration surgery outcome: An optical coherence tomography study

Importance To analyse the preoperative conjunctival thickness in glaucomatous patients undergoing filtration surgery (FS), using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Background The conjunctival status represents one of the most critical determinants of the FS outcome. Design Retrospective study. Part...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical & experimental ophthalmology 2020-12, Vol.48 (9), p.1192-1200
Main Authors: Mastropasqua, Leonardo, Brescia, Lorenza, Oddone, Francesco, Sacchi, Matteo, Aloia, Raffaella, Totta, Michele, Scatena, Barbara, Mastropasqua, Rodolfo, Agnifili, Luca
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biomarkers
Conjunctiva
conjunctival thickness
filtering bleb
Filtration
filtration surgery
Glaucoma
optical coherence tomography
Surgery
Tomography
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Importance To analyse the preoperative conjunctival thickness in glaucomatous patients undergoing filtration surgery (FS), using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Background The conjunctival status represents one of the most critical determinants of the FS outcome. Design Retrospective study. Participants Sixty‐seven patients candidate to FS for uncontrolled glaucoma were enrolled. Methods OCT was performed at the superior bulbar conjunctiva before FS, and at bleb site at the last follow‐up (LF‐up) after surgery. Main Outcome Measures Preoperative full, epithelial, and stromal conjunctival thickness (FCT, CET, CST) and reflectivity (CR), and LF‐up bleb‐wall thickness (BT), reflectivity (BR) and intraocular pressure (IOP), were the major outcomes. The relations between preoperative parameters and LF‐up‐IOP, BT and BR were calculated. Results FS was completely successful in 23 patients (group 1), successful with medications in 22 (group 2), and failed in 22 (group 3). FCT, CET and CST were lower, whereas CR higher, in group 3 compared to groups 1 and 2 (P 
ISSN:1442-6404
1442-9071
DOI:10.1111/ceo.13857