Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 Mar 10;3(3):CD012223.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012223.pub2.

Cyclodestructive procedures for refractory glaucoma

Monica F Chen  1 , Carole H Kim, Anne L Coleman
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Cyclodestructive procedures for refractory glaucoma

Monica F Chen et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Cyclodestructive procedures are often used in patients with refractory glaucoma who have failed to achieve lower intraocular pressure (IOP) from filtration procedures and maximal medical therapy. Destruction of the ciliary body helps to lower IOP by reducing aqueous humor formation. Of the many types of cyclodestructive procedures, laser cyclophotocoagulation (CPC) has become the most common surgical method for reducing aqueous inflow. Options for CPC are wide-ranging: they can be performed using a neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG) or diode laser and laser energy can be delivered by either the contact or non-contact method. Another cyclodestructive procedure is endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation (ECP), which the ophthalmologist can use selectively to target the ciliary epithelium and ablate ciliary body tissue. There is debate regarding which cyclodestructive method is best and how they compare to other glaucoma surgeries.

Objectives: To assess the relative effectiveness and safety of cyclodestructive procedures compared with other procedures in people with refractory glaucoma of any type and to assess the relative effectiveness and safety of individual cyclodestructive procedures compared with each other.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; LILACS BIREME; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 21 September 2018.

Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized trials in which participants underwent a secondary procedure for refractory glaucoma. We included trials with any laser type, route of administration, and laser settings. The primary comparison was any cyclodestructive procedure versus another glaucoma treatment, and the secondary comparisons were individual cyclodestructive procedures versus another cyclodestructive procedure.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts from the database searches, and after retrieving the full-text reports of those that were potentially relevant, classified the full-text articles as included or excluded. Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies and assessed the risk of bias. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion or by consultation with a third review author when necessary.

Main results: We included five trials reporting data for 330 eyes (326 participants). One study to had a low risk of bias for most domains and the other studies had an overall unclear risk of bias. This review includes four different comparisons: 1) ECP versus Ahmed implant, 2) micropulse CPC versus continuous-wave CPC; 3) CPC with a diode versus Nd:YAG laser; and 4) CPC with an Nd:YAG laser emitting 8J versus 4J.No study reported data for our primary outcome, change from baseline in pain severity as reported by the participant or change in number of pain medications.For our primary comparison, we included one trial that compared ECP with the Ahmed implant. At 12-month follow-up, the mean difference (MD) in IOPs between groups was -1.14 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.21 to 1.93; 58 participants; low-certainty evidence (LCE)). At 24 months postintervention, we found very LCE suggesting that visual acuity may be better among participants in the ECP group than in the Ahmed implant group (MD -0.24 logMAR, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.04; 54 participants), and the difference in the mean number of glaucoma medications used by participants in each group was unclear (MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.17; 54 participants; very LCE). Reported adverse events in the ECP group (34 participants) were one case each of hypotony, phthisis bulbi, retinal detachment, and choroidal detachment; in the Ahmed implant group (34 participants) there was one case of endophthalmitis, two cases of retinal detachment, and six cases of choroidal detachment.Three types of comparisons from four included studies provided data for our secondary comparisons. In the study that compared micropulse with continuous-wave CPC, median IOP was reported to be similar between the two groups at all time points. At 18 months postintervention, the median number of IOP-lowering medications was reduced from two to one in both groups. One participant in the micropulse and two in the continuous group exhibited worsened visual acuity. One case of prolonged inflammation was seen in the micropulse group (23 participants). Seven cases of prolonged inflammation, five cases of hypotony, and one case of phthisis bulbi were seen in the continuous group (23 participants).Two studies compared CPC using a semiconductor diode versus an Nd:YAG laser. At 12 months postintervention, the MD in IOP was 1.02 mmHg (95% CI -1.49 to 3.53) in one study (LCE). The second study did not report mean IOP beyond three months of follow-up. Neither study reported the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity or number of glaucoma medications. Both studies reported hypotony as an adverse event in three participants in each study.One study compared different energy settings of the same Nd:YAG laser. At 12-month follow-up, visual acuity was unchanged or improved in 21 of 33 participants in the 8J group and 20 of 27 participants in the 4J group (risk ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.21; very LCE). More participants in the 8J group reduced the number of medications taken compared with the 4J group (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.91; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The presence of fibrin or hyphema were seen in five participants who received 8J and none who received 4J. There was a severe anterior chamber reaction in 11 of 26 (42%) participants who received 8J of energy and 2 of 21 (10%) participants who received 4J of energy.

Authors' conclusions: Evidence from five studies included in this review was inconclusive as to whether cyclodestructive procedures for refractory glaucoma result in better outcomes and fewer complications than other glaucoma treatments, and whether one type of cyclodestructive procedure is better than another. The most commonly reported adverse events across all five studies were hypotony and phthisis bulbi. Large, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed. Patient-reported outcomes such as pain and quality of life should be considered as primary outcomes or important secondary outcomes of future trials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

MC has no known conflicts of interest. CK has no known conflicts of interest. AC has no known conflicts of interest.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012223

References

References to studies included in this review

Aquino 2015 {published data only}
    1. Aquino MC, Barton K, Tan AM, Sng C, Li X, Loon SC, et al. Micropulse versus continuous wave transscleral diode cyclophotocoagulation refractory glaucoma: a randomized exploratory study. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2015;43(1):40‐6. - PubMed
Lima 2004 {published data only}
    1. Lima FE, Magacho L, Carvalho DM, Susanna R Jr, Avila MP. A prospective, comparative study between endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation and the Ahmed Drainage Implant in refractory glaucoma. Journal of Glaucoma 2004;13(3):233‐7. - PubMed
    1. Lima FE, Magacho L, Guimaraes N, Avila M, Susanna R. A prospective, randomized, comparative study between endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation and the Ahmed drainage implant in refractory glaucoma. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2003; Vol. 44:ARVO E‐Abstract 4294.
Shields 1993 {published data only}
    1. Shields MB, Wilkerson MH, Echelman DA. A comparison of two energy levels for noncontact transscleral neodymium‐YAG cyclophotocoagulation. Archives of Ophthalmology 1993;111(4):484‐7. - PubMed
Ulbig 1995 {published data only}
    1. Ulbig M, McHugh DA, Hamilton PA. A clinical comparison of semiconductor diode versus Nd:YAG cycloablation. American Academy of Ophthalmology 1992:Abstract 135.
    1. Ulbig MW, McHugh DA, McNaught AI, Hamilton PA. Clinical comparison of semiconductor diode versus neodymium: YAG non‐contact cyclo photocoagulation. British Journal of Ophthalmology 1995;79(6):569‐74. - PMC - PubMed
Youn 1998 {published data only}
    1. Youn J, Cox TA, Herndon LW, Allingham RR, Shields MB. A clinical comparison of transscleral cyclophotocoagulation with neodymium: YAG and semiconductor diode lasers. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1998;126(5):640‐7. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Agarwal 2004 {published data only}
    1. Agarwal HC, Gupta V, Sihota R. Evaluation of contact versus non‐contact diode laser cyclophotocoagulation for refractory glaucomas using similar energy settings. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2004;32:33‐8. - PubMed
Alves Júnior {published data only}
    1. Alves Júnior AD, Yamane R, Motta MM. Comparative study of diode transscleral cyclophotocoagulation associated or not with periphery retinal ablation in neovascular glaucoma [Estudo comparativo da ciclofotocoagulação transescleral pelo laser de diodo associada ou não à ablação simultânea da retina periférica no gaucoma neovascular]. Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia 2003;62(8):578‐88.
Benitez Del Castillo Sanchez 1996 {published data only}
    1. Benitez Del Castillo Sanchez J, Benitez del Castillo JM, Morales Lopez MD, Rodriguez Suarez AH. Refractory glaucoma treatment cyclophotocoagulation vs trabeculectomy with mitomycin. Archivos de la Sociedad Espanola de Oftalmologia 1996;70(3):279‐88.
Bloom 2013 {published data only}
    1. Bloom PA, Clement CI, King A, Noureddin B, Sharma K, Hitchings RA, et al. A comparison between tube surgery, ND:YAG laser and diode laser cyclophotocoagulation in the management of refractory glaucoma. BioMed Research International 2013; Vol. 2013:371951. [DOI: 10.1155/2013/371951] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bloom PA, Noureddin BN, Sharma K, Hitchings RA, Khaw PT. A matched comparison between tube surgery, Nd:YAG and diode laser cyclophotocoagulation in the management of refractory glaucoma. American Academy of Ophthalmology 1996:Abstract 174. - PMC - PubMed
Brooks 1993 {published data only}
    1. Brooks AM, Dallison IW, Gillies WE, Guest CS, Taylor HR. Comparison of cycloablation with Nd:YAG cyclophotocoagulation and cyclocryotherapy. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 1993;34(4):738 ARVO Abstract 182.
Chalam 1999 {published data only}
    1. Chalam KV, Lin N, Tripathi R. Advanced neovascular glaucoma: pars plana modified Baerveldt implant versus Nd:YAG transscleral cyclophotocoagulation. American Academy of Ophthalmology 1999:Abstract 241.
Chalam 2001 {published data only}
    1. Chalam KV, Malkani SM, Tripathi RC, Ambati J. Neovascular glaucoma: pars plana Baerveldt implant vs Nd:YAG transscleral cyclophotocoagulation vs YAG endocyclophotocoagulation. American Academy of Ophthalmology 2001:Abstract 168.
Chen 2013 {published data only}
    1. Chen JP, Wang R, Xu HY, Zhang P, Zhang J. Clinical observation of two operation methods for neovascular glaucoma. International Eye Science 2013;13(11):2259‐61.
Cyrlin 1999 {published data only}
    1. Cyrlin N, Tressler CS, Rosenshein JS, Dubay HB. Contact diode laser cyclocoagulation: a long term comparison of shorter‐duration; higher‐power vs. longer‐duration, lower‐power treatment in uncontrolled glaucoma. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 1999; Vol. 40:ARVO E‐Abstract 1431.
Egbert 2001 {published data only}
    1. Egbert PR, Fiadoyor S, Budenz D, Shields MB. Diode laser transscleral cyclophotocoagulation as a primary surgical treatment for primary open‐angle glaucoma. Evidence‐Based Eye Care 2001;2(4):238‐9. - PubMed
    1. Egbert PR, Fiadoyor S, Budenz DL, Dadzie P, Byrd S. Diode laser transscleral cyclophotocoagulation as a primary surgical treatment for primary open‐angle glaucoma. Archives of Ophthalmology 2001;119(3):345‐50. - PubMed
Fankhauser 1993 {published data only}
    1. Fankhauser F, Kwasniewska S, England C, Dürr V. Diode versus Nd:YAG laser for cyclodestructive procedures. Ophthalmic Surgery 1993;24(8):566‐7. - PubMed
Goldenberg‐Cohen 2005 {published data only}
    1. Goldenberg‐Cohen N, Bahar I, Ostashinski M, Lusky M, Weinberger D, Gaton DD. Cyclocryotherapy versus transscleral diode laser cyclophotocoagulation for uncontrolled intraocular pressure. Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging 2005;36(4):272‐9. - PubMed
Kaushik 2008 {published data only}
    1. Kaushik S, Pandav SS, Jain R, Bansal S, Gupta A. Lower energy levels adequate for effective transcleral diode laser cyclophotocoagulation in Asian eyes with refractory glaucoma. Eye 2008;22(3):398‐405. - PubMed
Koraszewska‐Matuszewska 2004 {published data only}
    1. Koraszewska‐Matuszewska B, Leszczyński R, Samochowiec‐Donocik E, Nawrocka L. Cyclodestructive procedures in secondary glaucoma in children. Klinika Oczna 2003;106(1‐2 Suppl):199‐200. - PubMed
Korte 2002 {published data only}
    1. Korte P, Wirbelauer C, Haberle H, Pham DT. Cyclophoto‐versus cyclocryo‐coagulation for treatment of secondary glaucoma. Ophthalmologe 2002;99(Suppl 1):S97.
Liu 2008 {published data only}
    1. Liu G, Tang GL. Effect of transscleral diode laser cyclophotocoagulation and cyclocryosurgery in treatment of severe glaucoma. International Journal of Ophthalmology 2008;8(8):1673‐4.
Marcus 1992 {published data only}
    1. Marcus C, Moster M, Wilson R. A four year follow up comparison of 180° vs. 360° neodymium:yag transscleral cyclophotocoagulation. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 1992; Vol. 33:ARVO E‐Abstract 2876.
Miller‐Meeks 1994 {published data only}
    1. Miller‐Meeks M, Higginbotham EJ. Comparing energy levels of contact Nd:YAG transscleral laser cyclophotocoagulation (CTLC) in uncontrolled glaucoma. American Academy of Ophthalmology 1994:Abstract 130.
Noureddin 1992 {published data only}
    1. Noureddin BN, Wilson‐Holt N, Lavin M, Jeffrey M, Hitchings RA. Advanced uncontrolled glaucoma. Nd:YAG cyclophotocoagulation or tube surgery. Ophthalmology 1992;99(3):430‐7. - PubMed
Radax 1992 {published data only}
    1. Radax U, Menapace R, Rigal K, Papapanos P, Amon M. A comparison of CW Nd‐YAG contact transcleral hemicyclophotocoagulation and hemicyclocryotherapy in uncontrolled primary open angle glaucoma. Spektrum der Augenheilkunde 1992;6(5):228‐31.
Shukla 1981 {published data only}
    1. Shukla M, Thakkur N. A comparative evaluation of cyclocryotherapy, cyclodiathermy and cycloanemization in glaucoma. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 981;29(1):13‐7. - PubMed
Suzuki 1989 {published data only}
    1. Suzuki Y, Araie M, Yumita A, Yamamoto T. Effect of cyclocryotherapy and transscleral laser cyclophotocoagulation in refractory glaucoma. Japanese Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology 1989;43(6):1021‐5.
Tzamalis 2011 {published data only}
    1. Tzamalis A, Pham DT, Wirbelauer C. Diode laser cyclophotocoagulation versus cyclocryotherapy in the treatment of refractory glaucoma. European Journal of Ophthalmology 2011;21(5):589‐96. - PubMed
Walland 1998 {published data only}
    1. Walland MJ. Diode laser cyclophotocoagulation: dose‐standardized therapy in end‐stage glaucoma. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology 1998;26(2):135‐9. - PubMed
Wei 1999 {published data only}
    1. Wei Z, Guohua Y, Junzhong M. Long‐term results of diode versus Nd:YAG contact transscleral laser cyclophotocoagulation for refractory glaucoma. Lasers and Light in Ophthalmology 1999;9(1):29‐35.
Xu 2007 {published data only}
    1. Xu S, Wang Y, Su G. Evaluation of surgical effectiveness for neovascular glaucoma. Chinese Ophthalmic Research 2007;25(9):707‐9.
Yildirim 2009 {published data only}
    1. Yildirim N, Yalvac IS, Sahin A, Ozer A, Bozca T. A comparative study between diode laser cyclophotocoagulation and the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in neovascular glaucoma: a long‐term follow‐up. Journal of Glaucoma 2009;18(3):192‐6. - PubMed
Yu 2008 {published data only}
    1. Yu JY, Kahook MY, Lathrop KL, Neocker RJ. The effect of probe placement and type of visoelastic material on endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation laser energy transmission. Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging 2008;39(2):133‐6. - PubMed
Zhang 2010 {published data only}
    1. Zhang B. Contrast of surgical effect of two different operations for neovascular glaucoma. International Journal of Ophthalmology 2010;10(4):671‐3.
Zweifach 1997 {published data only}
    1. Zweifach E, Wilensky J, Hillman D, Quinonse R, Gemperil A. A prospective randomized trial of diode and Nd:YAG lasers in treating glaucoma. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 1997; Vol. 38:ARVO E‐Abstract 844.

References to studies awaiting assessment

NCT01774227 {published data only}
    1. NCT01774227. The pops‐titration versus the slow‐coagulation cyclophotocoagulation in treatment of refractory glaucoma. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01774227 (first received 23 January 2013).
NCT02691455 {published data only}
    1. NCT02691455. The AGS second aqueous shunt implant vs. transscleral cyclophotocoagulation treatment study (ASSISTS). clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02691455 (first received 25 February 2016).
NCT02875158 {published data only}
    1. NCT02875158. Cyclophotocoagulation in glaucoma. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02875158 (first received 23 August 2016).

Additional references

Ansari 2007
    1. Ansari E, Gandhewer J. Long‐term efficacy and visual acuity following transscleral diode laser photocoagulation in cases of refractory and non‐refractory glaucoma. Eye 2007;21(7):936‐40. - PubMed
Beckman 1972
    1. Beckman H, Kinoshita A, Rota AN, Sugar HS. Transscleral ruby laser irradiation of the ciliary body in the treatment of intractable glaucoma. Transactions of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology 1972;76(2):423‐36. - PubMed
Beckman 1973
    1. Beckman H, Sugar HS. Neodymium laser cyclocoagulation. Archives of Ophthalmology 1973;90(1):27–8. - PubMed
Bietti 1950
    1. Bietti G. Surgical intervention of the ciliary body; new trends for the relief of glaucoma. Journal of the American Medical Association 1950;142(12):889‐97. - PubMed
Bloom 1997
    1. Bloom PA, Tsai JC, Sharma K, Miller MH, Rice NS, Hitchings RA, et al. “Cyclodiode”. Trans‐scleral diode laser cyclophotocoagulation in the treatment of advanced refractory glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1997;104(9):1508‐19. - PubMed
Burr 2012
    1. Burr J, Azuara‐Blanco A, Avenell A, Tuulonen A. Medical versus surgical interventions for open angle glaucoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 9. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004399.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
CNTGS 1998
    1. Collaborative Normal‐Tension Glaucoma Study Group. The effectiveness of intraocular pressure reduction in the treatment of normal‐tension glaucoma. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1998;126(4):498‐505. - PubMed
Coleman 1985
    1. Coleman DJ, Lizzi FL, Driller J, Rosado AL, Burgess SE, Torpey JH, et al. Therapeutic ultrasound in the treatment of glaucoma. II. Clinical applications. Ophthalmology 1985;92(3):347‐53. - PubMed
Coleman 2008
    1. Coleman AL, Miglior S. Risk factors for glaucoma onset and progression. Survey of Ophthalmology 2008;53(6 Suppl):S3‐10. - PubMed
Coleman 2012
    1. Coleman AL. Advances in glaucoma treatment and management: surgery. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2012;53(5):2491‐4. - PubMed
Eldaly 2014
    1. Eldaly M, Bunce C, ElSheikha O, Wormald R. Non‐penetrating filtration surgery versus trabeculectomy for open‐angle glaucoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007059.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Foster 2002
    1. Foster PJ, Buhrmann R, Quigley HA, Johnson GJ. The definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2002;86(2):238‐42. - PMC - PubMed
Friedman 2004
    1. Friedman DS, Wolfs RC, O'Colmain BJ, Klein BE, Taylor HR, West S, et al. Prevalence of open‐angle glaucoma among adults in the United States. Archives of Ophthalmology 2004;122(4):532‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Glanville 2006
    1. Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JN, Camosso‐Stefinovic J. How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2006;94(2):130‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Gordon 2002
    1. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open‐angle glaucoma. Archives of Ophthalmology 2002;120(6):714‐20. - PubMed
GRADEpro 2015 [Computer program]
    1. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime). GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed prior to 6 December 2018. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), 2015.
He 2006
    1. He M, Foster PJ, Ge J, Huang W, Zheng Y, Friedman DS, et al. Prevalence and clinical characteristics of glaucoma in adult Chinese: a population‐based study in Liwan District, Guangzhou. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2006;47(7):2782‐8. - PubMed
Heijl 2002
    1. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Hussein M, et al. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Archives of Ophthalmology 2002;120(10):1268‐79. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Altman DG, (editors). Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Higgins 2017
    1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017), Cochrane, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Landers 2002
    1. Landers J, Goldberg I, Graham SL. Analysis of risk factors that may be associated with progression from ocular hypertension to primary open angle glaucoma. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2002;30(4):242‐7. - PubMed
Leske 2003
    1. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Komaroff E, et al. Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial. Archives of Ophthalmology 2003;121(1):48‐56. - PubMed
Lichter 2001
    1. Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Guire KE, Janz NK, Wren PA, et al. Interim clinical outcomes in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery. Ophthalmology 2001;108(11):1943‐53. - PubMed
Lin 2002
    1. Lin S. Endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2002;86(12):1434‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Lin 2004
    1. Lin P, Wollstein G, Glavas IP, Schuman JS. Contact transscleral neodymium:yttrium‐aluminum‐garnet laser cyclophotocoagulation. Long‐term outcome. Ophthalmology 2004;111(11):2137‐43. - PMC - PubMed
Liu 1994
    1. Liu GJ, Mizukawa A, Okisaka S. Mechanism of intraocular pressure decrease after contact transscleral continuous‐wave Nd:YAG laser cyclophotocoagulation. Ophthalmic Research 1994;26(2):65‐79. - PubMed
Martin 2001
    1. Martin KR, Broadway DC. Cyclodiode laser therapy for painful, blind glaucomatous eyes. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2001;85(4):474‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Medeiros 2003
    1. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Aihara M, Weinreb RN. Corneal thickness as a risk factor for visual field loss in patients with preperimetric glaucomatous optic neuropathy. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2003;136(5):805‐13. - PubMed
Minckler 2006
    1. Minckler D, Vedula SS, Li T, Mathew M, Ayyala R, Francis B. Aqueous shunts for glaucoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004918.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Mistlberger 2001
    1. Mistlberger A, Liebmann J, Tschiderer H, Ritch R, Ruckhofer J, Grabner G. Diode laser transscleral cyclophotocoagulation for refractory glaucoma. Journal of Glaucoma 2001;10(4):288‐93. - PubMed
Pan 2011
    1. Pan Y, Varma P. Natural history of glaucoma. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 2011;59(Suppl 1):S19‐23. - PMC - PubMed
Pastor 2001
    1. Pastor SA, Singh K, Lee DA, Juzych MS, Lin SC, Netland PA, et al. Cyclophotocoagulation: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2001;108(11):2130‐8. - PubMed
Prum 2016
    1. Prum BE Jr, Rosenberg LF, Gedde SJ, Mansberger SL, Stein JD, Moroi SE, et al. Primary Open‐Angle Glaucoma Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines (2015). Ophthalmology 2016;123(1):P41‐111. - PubMed
Quigley 1996
    1. Quigley HA. Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. British Journal of Ophthalmology 1996;80(5):389‐93. - PMC - PubMed
Quigley 2006
    1. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2006;90(3):262‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Quigley 2011
    1. Quigley HA. Glaucoma. Lancet 2011;377(9774):1367‐77. - PubMed
Review Manager 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Sarkisian 2009
    1. Sarkisian SR Jr. Tube shunt complications and their prevention. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 2009;20(2):126‐30. - PubMed
Shields 1985
    1. Shields MB. Cyclodestructive surgery for glaucoma: past, present, and future. Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society 1985;83:285‐303. - PMC - PubMed
Tham 2014
    1. Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng CY. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Ophthalmology 2014;121(11):2081‐90. - PubMed
Topouzis 1998
    1. Topouzis F, Yu F, Coleman AL. Factors associated with elevated rates of adverse outcomes after cyclodestructive procedures versus drainage device procedures. Ophthalmology 1998;105(12):2276‐81. - PubMed
Turkoski 2012
    1. Turkoski BB. Glaucoma and glaucoma medications. Orthopaedic Nursing 2012;31(1):37‐41. - PubMed
Van Rens 1988
    1. Rens GH, Arkell SM, Charlton W, Doesburg W. Primary angle‐closure glaucoma among Alaskan Eskimos. Documenta Ophthalmologica 1988;70(2‐3):265‐76. - PubMed
VanVeldhuisen 2000
    1. VanVeldhuisen PC, Ederer F, Gaasterland DE, Sullivan EK, Beck A, Prum BE Jr, et al. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. The AGIS Investigators. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2000;130(4):429‐40. - PubMed
Vass 2007
    1. Vass C, Hirn C, Syncha T, Findl O, Sacu S, Bauer P, et al. Medical interventions for primary open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003167.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Vogt 1936
    1. Vogt A. Attempts to decrease intraocular pressure by means of diathermy damage to the ciliary body (cyclodiathermy) [Versuche zur intraokularen druckherabsetzung mittelst diathermieschädigung des corpus ciliare (Zyklodiathermiestichelung)]. Klinische Monatsblätter für Augenheilkunde 1936;97:672‐3.
Weinreb 2014
    1. Weinreb RN, Aung T, Medeiros FA. The pathophysiology and treatment of glaucoma: a review. JAMA 2014;311(18):1901‐11. - PMC - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Chen 2016
    1. Chen MF, Kim CH, Coleman A. Cyclodestructive procedures for refractory glaucoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012223] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types