<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xml:lang="en">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>Czech and Slovak Ophthalmology</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">255</article-id>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.31348/2022/29</article-id>
      <article-categories>
        <subj-group>
          <subject>Original article</subject>
        </subj-group>
      </article-categories>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Tube Versus Trabeculectomy in Juvenile-Onset Open Angle Glaucoma – Treatment Outcomes in Tertiary Hospitals In Malaysia</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name>
            <surname>Abd Hadi</surname>
            <given-names>Bin Mohd Rasidin</given-names>
          </name>
          <contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8181-6463</contrib-id>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name>
            <surname>Ang</surname>
            <given-names>Wen Jeat</given-names>
          </name>
          <contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8112-2258</contrib-id>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name>
            <surname>Raja Norliza</surname>
            <given-names>Raja Omar</given-names>
          </name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name>
            <surname>Norhalwani</surname>
            <given-names>Binti Husain</given-names>
          </name>
          <contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9416-103X</contrib-id>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name>
            <surname>Azhany</surname>
            <given-names>Yaakub</given-names>
          </name>
          <contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8047-1192</contrib-id>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name>
            <surname>Liza-Sharmini</surname>
            <given-names>Ahmad Tajudin</given-names>
          </name>
          <contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8144-8816</contrib-id>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic">
        <day>30</day>
        <month>12</month>
        <year>2022</year>
      </pub-date>
      <issue>6</issue>
      <elocation-id>3</elocation-id>
      <abstract>
        <p>Aim of the study: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering effect and postoperative complications between primary augmented trabeculectomy and glaucoma drainage device (GDD) implantation as primary surgical intervention in patients with juvenile-onset open angle glaucoma (JOAG). Patients and Methods: A retrospective review study involving 20 eyes that underwent primary augmented trabeculectomy with mitomycin (MMC) and 10 eyes GDD implantation in 3 tertiary centres in Malaysia between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2019. They were followed up for at least 12 months postsurgical intervention. Intraocular pressure (IOP), number of topical IOP lowering medication and complications were evaluated at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-intervention. Based on the IOP, the success was divided into complete and partial success, and failure. IOP and postsurgical complications were compared using the Repetitive Measure Analysis of Variance (RM ANOVA) and the Pearson chi-square test. Results: Both methods were effective in lowering the IOP. Eyes with primary augmented trabeculectomy have significant lower IOP compared to GDD implantation (p = 0.037). There was a higher incidence of postoperative hypotony (30%) in the trabeculectomy group. There was also a significant reduction of mean number of topical pressure-lowering drugs required postoperatively (p = 0.015). Complete success was achieved in 100% of eyes with trabeculectomy and 67% in GDD implantation (p = 0.047). Conclusions: Primary augmented trabeculectomy and GDD implantation are good surgical options for the treatment of JOAG. Both methods provide IOP lowering at 1 year. However, trabeculectomy provides better pressure lowering, compared to GDD implantation in patients with JOAG.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>juvenile-onset open angle glaucoma</kwd>
        <kwd>augmented trabeculectomy</kwd>
        <kwd>glaucoma drainage device</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <title>References</title>
      <ref id="R4522">
        <mixed-citation>Pathania D, Senthil S, Rao H, Mandal AK, Garudari CS. Outcomes of trabeculectomy in juvenile open angle glaucoma. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2014;62(2):224-228.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4523">
        <mixed-citation>Wiggs JL, Del Bono EA, Schuman JS, Hutchinson BT, Walton DS. Clinical Features of Five Pedigrees Genetically Linked to the Juvenile Glaucoma Locus on Chromosome 1q21-q31. Ophthalmology. 1995;102(12):1782-1789.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4524">
        <mixed-citation>Ciociola, Elizabeth C., Klifto, Meredith R. Juvenile open angle glaucoma: current diagnosis and management. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2022 Mar 1;33(2):97-102.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4525">
        <mixed-citation>Tsai JC, Chang HW, Kao CN, Lai IC, Teng MC. Trabeculectomy with mitomycin C versus trabeculectomy alone for juvenile primary open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmologica. 2003;217(1):24-30.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4526">
        <mixed-citation>Ishida K, Mandal AK, Netland PA. Glaucoma drainage implants in pediatric patients. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2005;18(3):431-442.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4527">
        <mixed-citation>Djodeyre MR, Peralta Calvo J, Abelairas Gomez J. Clinical evaluation and risk factors of time to failure of Ahmed Glaucoma Valve implant in pediatric patients. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(3):614-620.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4528">
        <mixed-citation>European Glaucoma Society Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma, 4th Edition - Chapter 2: Classification and terminology supported by the EGS Foundation: Part 1: Foreword; Introduction; Glossary; Chapter 2 Classification and Terminology. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(5):73-127.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4529">
        <mixed-citation>Cantor LB, Mantravadi A, WuDunn D, Swamynathan K, Cortes A. Morphologic classification of filtering blebs after glaucoma filtration surgery: The Indiana Bleb Appearance Grading Scale. J Glaucoma. 2003;12(3):266-271.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4530">
        <mixed-citation>Islamaj E, Wubbels RJ, de Waard PWT. Primary Baerveldt versus trabeculectomy study after one-year follow-up. Acta Ophthalmol. 2018;96(6):e740-746.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4531">
        <mixed-citation>Das JC, Chaudhuri Z, Sharma P, Bhomaj S. The Ahmed Glaucoma Valve in refractory glaucoma: Experiences in Indian eyes. Eye. 2005;19(2):183-190.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4532">
        <mixed-citation>Le, P. H., Nguyen, M., Humphrey, K. A., &amp; Klifto, M. R. Ahmed and Baerveldt Drainage Implants in the Treatment of Juvenile Open- -angle Glaucoma. Journal of glaucoma. 2021;30(3), 276-280.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4533">
        <mixed-citation>Sihota R, Shakrawal J, Sidhu T et al. Does TRABECULECTOMY meet the 10-10-10 challenge in PACG, POAG, JOAG and Secondary glaucomas? Int Ophthalmol. 2020;40(5):1233-1243.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4534">
        <mixed-citation>Riva I, Roberti G, Oddone F, Konstas AG, Quaranta L. Ahmed glaucoma valve implant: Surgical technique and complications. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:357-367.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4535">
        <mixed-citation>Kastner A, King AJ. Advanced glaucoma at diagnosis: current perspectives.Eye. 2020;34(1):116-128.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4536">
        <mixed-citation>Broadway DC, Chang LP. Trabeculectomy, Risk Factors for Failure and the Preoperative State of the Conjunctiva. J Glaucoma 2001; 10:237-249</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4537">
        <mixed-citation>Fannin LA, Schiffman JC, Budenz DL. Risk factors for hypotony maculopathy. Ophthalmology 2003;110:1185-1191</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4538">
        <mixed-citation>Benson SE, Mandal K, Bunce CV, Fraser SG. Is post-trabeculectomy hypotony a risk factor for subsequent failure? A case control study. BMC Ophthalmology 2005; 5:7.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4539">
        <mixed-citation>Koraszewska-Matuszewka B, Samochowiec-Donocik E, Filipek E. Prognosis in juvenile glaucoma after trabeculectomy. Klin Oczna 2002;104:115-118.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4540">
        <mixed-citation>Stürmer J, Broadway DC, Hitchings RA. Young Patient Trabeculectomy: Assessment of Risk Factors for Failure. Ophthalmology 1993; 100: 928-939.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R4541">
        <mixed-citation>Wilson MR, Mendis U, Smith SD, Paliwai A. Ahmed glaucoma valve implant vs trabeculectomy in the surgical treatment of glaucoma: A randomized clinical trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130(3):267-273.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>
