IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0063591.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ex-PRESS Implantation Versus Trabeculectomy in Uncontrolled Glaucoma: A Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Wang
  • Minwen Zhou
  • Wenbin Huang
  • Xiulan Zhang

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of Ex-PRESS implantation (Ex-Press) compared with trabeculectomy (Trab) in the treatment of patients with uncontrolled glaucoma. Methods: A comprehensive literature meta-analysis was performed according to the Cochrane Collaboration methodology to identify controlled clinical trials comparing Ex-Press with Trab. Efficacy estimates were measured by weight mean difference (WMD) for the percentage intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction from baseline to end-point, odds ratio (OR) for complete success, and qualified success rates. Tolerability estimates were measured by OR for adverse events. All outcomes were reported with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Data were synthesized by Stata 11.0 SE for Windows. Results: Eight controlled clinical trials meeting the predefined criteria were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 605 eyes from 559 patients with medically uncontrolled glaucoma were included. The weighted mean difference of the percentage IOP reduction from baseline was 2.33 (95% confidence interval: −2.59–7.24) when comparing Ex-Press with Trab. Ex-Press was associated with numerically greater, but nonsignificant, IOP lowering efficacy than Trab. The pooled odds ratio comparing Ex-Press with Trab were 0.93 (0.39, 2.23) for the complete success rate and 1.00 (0.39, 2.56) for the qualified success rate. Ex-Press was associated with a significantly lower frequency of hypotony and hyphema than Trab, with pooled ORs of 0.29 (0.13, 0.65) and 0.36 (0.13, 0.97), respectively. Conclusion: Ex-Press was associated with equivalent efficacy to Trab in lowering IOP. Comparable proportions of patients reached the IOP target with Ex-Press and Trab. Ex-Press was better tolerated than Trab.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Wang & Minwen Zhou & Wenbin Huang & Xiulan Zhang, 2013. "Ex-PRESS Implantation Versus Trabeculectomy in Uncontrolled Glaucoma: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-6, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0063591
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063591
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063591
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063591&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0063591?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guohai Chen & Wensheng Li & Fangzheng Jiang & Sihong Mao & Yuhua Tong, 2014. "Ex-PRESS Implantation versus Trabeculectomy in Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-6, January.
    2. Wei Wang & Miao He & Minwen Zhou & Xiulan Zhang, 2013. "Fornix-Based versus Limbus-Based Conjunctival Flap in Trabeculectomy: A Quantitative Evaluation of the Evidence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-8, December.
    3. Wei Wang & Xiulan Zhang, 2014. "Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing EX-PRESS Implantation with Trabeculectomy for Open-Angle Glaucoma," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-8, June.
    4. Miao He & Wei Wang & Xiulan Zhang & Wenyong Huang, 2014. "Ologen Implant versus Mitomycin C for Trabeculectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0063591. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.