Evidence Hub

Five-year reoperation rates after Schlemm's canal-based glaucoma surgery versus trabeculectomy

Keyu Hu, Jin Wang, Q. Sang, Da-Peng Mou, Ye Zhang, Ning-Li Wang

Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology-journal Canadien D Ophtalmologie, 2025

137 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare 5-year reoperation rates between Schlemm's canal (SC)-based glaucoma surgery and trabeculectomy (Trab), and to identify risk factors for reoperations.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who underwent glaucoma surgery between January 2017 and December 2021. Propensity score matching was used to identify comparable participants among groups. SC-based glaucoma surgery included gonioscopy-assisted transluminal trabeculotomy, microcatheter-assisted trabeculotomy, ab-interno canaloplasty, canaloplasty, and trabectome. The primary outcome was unanticipated reoperations after the original procedure. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis compared reoperation rates between groups. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses identified risk factors for reoperation.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 112 eyes (106 patients) in the SC-based glaucoma surgery group and 147 eyes (137 patients) in the Trab group. The 5-year cumulative reoperation rate was significantly higher in the Trab group compared to the SC-based glaucoma surgery group (15.4% [93/604] vs 11.9% [72/604], respectively, and p = 0.045). Uncontrolled intraocular pressure (IOP) was the primary indication for reoperations in both groups. Trab surgery, higher preoperative IOP, greater number of preoperative medications, and previous glaucoma surgery history were independent risk factors for reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

SC-based glaucoma surgery showed a…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 137 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free