Phaco-endocyclophotocoagulation versus phaco alone in glaucoma: Intraocular pressure reduction and medication use across glaucoma subtypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Endocyclophotocoagulation (ECP), integrated with phacoemulsification (phaco-ECP), has emerged as a promising surgical approach in glaucoma management, particularly in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). This study retrospectively compares the efficacy of phaco-ECP and phacoemulsification (phaco) alone in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP) and medication dependence in patients with POAG and angle-closure glaucoma (ACG) over 1 year of follow-up. Patients and Methods: Patients included underwent either phaco alone or phaco-ECP. Surgical outcomes were assessed using analysis of variance, comparing IOP changes and medication usage. Results: A total of 383 patient files were analyzed, with 311 diagnosed with POAG and 72 with ACG. Of these, 160 underwent phaco alone and 223 underwent phaco-ECP. Baseline IOP averaged 14.9 mmHg, with significant reductions observed in the phaco-ECP group at 1 day, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year. In contrast, phaco alone showed minimal IOP reduction, with significant changes only at 6 months. Post hoc tests revealed that phaco-ECP produced significant IOP reductions in ACG ( P < 0.01), while phaco alone did not show significant changes in any subgroup. Medication usage increased significantly in the phaco alone group from baseline to 1 month ( P < 0.01), while phaco-ECP resulted in a significant decrease in medication use 1 month and 1 year postsurgery ( P < 0.01). Conclusions: Phaco-ECP led to sustained IOP reductions in POAG and ACG, with substantial improvements in medication use. In contrast, phaco alone was less effective in reducing IOP and resulted in increased reliance on topical medications. Phaco-ECP offers a more effective approach for managing glaucoma, reducing both IOP and medication dependence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".