Effectiveness of minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (review of international experience)
https://doi.org/10.53432/2078-4104-2022-21-4-56-63
Abstract
The trends of recent years regarding the surgical treatment of the visual organ and its appendages are to minimize tissue traumatization during surgical manipulations, reduce their duration, as well as achieve the best possible outcome from the points of view of the doctor and the patient at minimal economic costs. Currently, the leading vector in glaucoma treatment remains the achievement of the target level of intraocular pressure (IOP). Taking into account the projected increase in the number of patients with glaucoma, conducting justified surgical treatment will remain relevant in the future. Its present state prompts the creation of new drugs, new means of their delivery, and surgical techniques with improved safety profile while achieving effective IOP reduction. In this regard, the trends in the development of surgical treatment of glaucoma have shifted towards procedures with minimal trauma to the eye tissues — minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS). The article discusses modern varieties of MIGS, theoretical and practical aspects of their application (effectiveness and safety profile), as well as prospects of their use.
About the Authors
A. B. Movsisyan
Hospital for War Veterans No. 2; Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ophthalmologist, Hospital for War Veterans No. 2; Postgraduate student, Assistant Professor at the Academic Department of Ophthalmology, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University.
168 Volgogradskiy Prospekt, Moscow, 109472; 1 Ostrovityanova St., Moscow, 117997
A. E. Egorov
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University; Hospital for War Veterans No. 2
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor at the Academic Department of Ophthalmology named after Academician A.P. Nesterov, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University; Head of the Ophthalmology Department, Hospital for War Veterans No. 2.
1 Ostrovityanova St., Moscow, 117997; 168 Volgogradskiy Prospekt, Moscow, 109472
A. V. Kuroyedov
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University; P.V. Mandryka Central Military Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor at the Academic Department of Ophthalmology, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University; Head of the Ophthalmology Center, P.V. Mandryka Central Military Clinical Hospital.
1 Ostrovityanova St., Moscow, 117997; 8A Bolshaya Olenya St., Moscow, 107014.
References
1. Cai C.X., Wang J., Ahmad S., et al. National trends in surgical subspecialisation in ophthalmology in the USA. Br J Ophthalmol 2022. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-320295
2. Ong H.S., Ang M., Mehta J. Evolution of therapies for the corneal endothelium: past, present and future approaches. Br J Ophthalmol 2021; 105(4):454-467. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316149
3. Grajewski L., Grajewski O., Carstens J., Krause L. Incidence of Retinal Detachment after Macular Surgery. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2021; 238(5):580-583. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1353-5436
4. Marcos S., Martinez-Enriquez E., Vinas M. et al. Simulating Outcomes of Cataract Surgery: Important Advances in Ophthalmology. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2021; 23:277-306. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-082420-035827
5. Luebke J., Boehringer D., Anton A. et al. Trends in Surgical Glaucoma Treatment in Germany Between 2006 and 2018. Clin Epidemiol 2021; 13:581-592. https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S310542
6. ICO Guidelines for Glaucoma Eye Care. International Council of Ophthalmology; 2016.
7. Diordiychuk S.V., Kuroyedov A.V., Fomin N.E. et al. Early diagnosis and the effect of treatment compliance on the prognosis and progression of glaucomatous optic neuropathy. RMJ Clinical Ophthalmology 2021; 21(1):34–39. https://doi.org/10.32364/2311-7729-2021-21-1-34-39
8. Abysheva L.D., Alexandrov A.S., Arapiev M.U. et al. Optimization of diagnosis and treatment options in primary open-angle glaucoma patients. Natsional’nyi zhurnal glaukoma 2016; 15(2):19-35.
9. Petrov S.Iu., Vostrukhin S.V., Aslamazova A.E., Sherstneva L.V. Modern methods of minimally invasive glaucoma surgery. Vestnik Oftalmologii. 2016;132(3):96-102. https://doi.org/10.17116/oftalma2016132396-102
10. Movsisyan A.B., Kuroedov A.V., Arkharov M.A. et al. Epidemiological analysis of primary open-angle glaucoma incidence and prevalence in Russia. RMJ Clinical Ophthalmology. 2022;22(1):3–10. https://doi.org/10.32364/2311-7729-2022-22-1-3-10.
11. Petrov S.Yu. Principles of modern incisional surgery for glaucoma by the 4th Edition of the Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma of the European Glaucoma Society. RMJ Clinical ophthalmology 2017; 18(3):184-189.
12. Saheb H., Ahmed I.I. Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery: current perspectives and future directions. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2012; 23(2): 96-104.
13. Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery. Editors: Chelvin C. A. Sng., Keith Barton. Springer Nature, 2021: 204. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5632-6.
14. Birnbaum F.A., Neeson C., Valle D.S. Microinvasive Glaucoma Surgery: An Evidence-Based Review. Semin Ophthalmol 2021; 36(8):772-786. https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2021.1903513.
15. Natsional'noe rukovodstvo po glaukome dlya praktikuyushchikh vrachei [National glaucoma guidelines for practitioners]. Edited by Egorov E.A., Erichev V.P. Moscow, GEOTAR-Media Publ., 2019. 384 p.
16. Starikova D.I., Churnosov M.I. Modern views on the molecular basis of etiopathogenesis of primary open angle glaucoma. Fyodorov Journal of Ophthalmic Surgery 2017; (3):80-83. https://doi.org/10.25276/0235-4160-2017-3-80-83.
17. Andrew N.H., Akkach S., Casson R.J. A review of aqueous outflow resistance and its relevance to micro-invasive glaucoma surgery. Surv Ophthalmol 2020; 65:18-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2019.08.002
18. Ellingsen B.A., Grant W.M. Trabeculotomy and sinusotomy in enucleated human eyes. Invest Ophthalmol 1972; 11:21-28.
19. Hann C.R., Vercnocke A.J., Bentley M.D., Jorgensen S.M., Fautsch M.P. Anatomic changes in Schlemm's canal and collector channels in normal and primary open-angle glaucoma eyes using low and high perfusion pressures. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014; 55:5834-5841. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.14-14128
20. Gillmann K., Bravetti G.E., Mermoud A. et al. A prospective analy sis of iStent inject microstent positioning: Schlemm canal dilatation and intraocular pressure correlations. J Glaucoma 2019; 28:613-621. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001273
21. Glaukoma. Natsional'noe rukovodstvo [Glaucoma. National guidelines]. Editor. Egorov E.A. Moscow, GEOTAR-Media Publ., 2013. 824 p.
22. Vinod K., Gedde S.J. Safety profile of minimally invasive glaucoma surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2021; 32(2):160-168. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000000731
23. Rosdahl J.A., Gupta D. Prospective Studies of Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgeries: Systematic Review and Quality Assessment. Clin Ophthalmol 2020; 14:231-243. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S239772
24. Weinreb R.N. Uveoscleral outflow: the other outflow pathway. J Glaucoma 2000; 9:343-345. https://doi.org/10.1097/00061198-200010000-00001
25. Toris C.B., Yablonski M.E., Wang Y.L. et al. Aqueous humor dynamics in the aging human eye. Am J Ophthalmol 1999; 127:407-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9394(98)00436-x
26. Figus M., Posarelli C., Passani A. et al. The supraciliary space as a suitable pathway for glaucoma surgery: ho-hum or home run? Surv Ophthalmol 2017; 62:828-837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2017.05.002.
27. Emi K., Pederson J.E., Toris C.B. Hydrostatic pressure of the suprachoroidal space. Invest Ophthalmol. 1989; 30:233-238.
28. Kelly D.E., Hageman G.S., McGregor J.A. Uveal compartmentalization in the hamster eye revealed by fine structural and tracer studies: implications for uveoscleral outflow. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1983; 24:1288-1304.
29. Ring H.G., Fujino T. Observations on the anatomy and pathology of the choroidal vasculature. Arch Ophthalmol. 1967; 78:431-444. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1967.00980030433005.
30. Johnson M., McLaren J.W., Overby D.R. Unconventional aqueous humor outflow: a review. Exp Eye Res 2017; 158:94-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2016.01.017
31. Coban D.T., Erol M.K., Yucel O. Hemorrhagic choroidal detachment after use of anti-glaucomatous eye drops: case report. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2013; 76:309-310. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0004-27492013000500012
32. Gillmann К., Mansouri К. Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery: Where Is the Evidence? Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) 2020; 9(3): 203-214. https://doi.org/10.1097/APO.0000000000000294.
33. Schlunck G., Meyer-ter-Vehn T., Klink T. et al. Conjunctival fibrosis following filtering glaucoma surgery. Exp Eye Res 2016; 142:76-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2015.03.021.
34. Tan S.Z., Walkden A., Au L. One-year result of XEN45 implant for glaucoma: efficacy, safety, and postoperative management. Eye (Lond) 2018; 32:324-332. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2017.162
35. Nesterov A.P., Egorov E.A., Egorov A.E., Kats D.V. Influence of transscleral laser cyclophotocoagulation on interocular pressure and visual function in patients with open-angle advanced glaucoma. Vestnik oftal’mologii 2001; 117(1):3-4.
36. Khodzhaev N.S., Sidorova A.V., Starostina A.V., Eliseeva M.A. Micropulse transscleral cyclophotocoagulation for the treatment of glaucoma. Russian Ophthalmological Journal 2020; 13(2):105-111. https://doi.org/10.21516/2072-0076-2020-13-2-105-111
37. Clinical recommendations. Primary open-angle glaucoma (H40.1). 2020; 84 (approved by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation on 10.12.2020).
38. Lovpache D.N., Zavadski P.C., Zvereva O.G.. et al. Compliance and persistence in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma through the doctor opinions. Natsiona;’nyi zhurnal glaukoma 2020; 19(2): 11-21. https://doi.org/10.25700/NJG.2020.02.02
39. Pereira I.C.F., Wijdeven R., Wyss H.M. et al. Conventional glaucoma implants and the new MIGS devices: a comprehensive review of current options and future directions. Eye (Lond) 2021; 35(12):3202-3221. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-021-01595-x.
40. Lee R.M.H., Bouremel Y., Eames I. et al. Translating Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery Devices. Clin Transl Sci 2020; 13(1):14-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12660.
Review
For citations:
Movsisyan A.B., Egorov A.E., Kuroyedov A.V. Effectiveness of minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (review of international experience). National Journal glaucoma. 2022;21(4):56-63. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.53432/2078-4104-2022-21-4-56-63
Views:
443
Email this article 