The Effects of Phacoemulsification on Intraocular Pressure and Topical Medication Use in Patients With Glaucoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 3-Year Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: For patients with comorbid cataract and primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), guidance is lacking as to whether cataract extraction and traditional filtering surgery should be performed as a staged or combined procedure. Achieving this guidance requires an evidence-based understanding of the effects of phacoemulsification alone on intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with POAG. For this reason, a systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to synthesize evidence quantifying the effect of phacoemulsification on IOP and the required number of topical glaucoma medications in patients with cataract and POAG. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Database searches were last run on August 15, 2016 to identify potentially relevant studies. Identified articles were screened for relevance and meta-analysis was used to compute postoperative mean and percentage reduction in IOP (IOPR%) as well as mean difference in topical glaucoma medications. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 1613 records. Thirty-two studies (1826 subjects) were included in quantitative synthesis. A 12%, 14%, 15%, and 9% reduction in IOP from baseline occurred 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after phacoemulsification. A mean reduction of 0.57, 0.47, 0.38, and 0.16 medications per patient of glaucoma medication occurred 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after phacoemulsification. CONCLUSIONS: Phacoemulsification as a solo procedure does lower IOP in patients with POAG, and reduces dependency on topical glaucoma medications. These effects appear to last at least 36 months with gradual loss of the initial effect noted after 2 years. Certain populations appear to experience much greater reductions in IOP than others and future work to identify these high responding patients is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".