Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.52(12) > 1008951

Lee, Choi, Lee, and Lee: Bleb Morphology of Fornix-Based Versus Limbus-Based Conjunctival Flaps in Trabeculectomy with Mitomycin C

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the bleb morphology and surgical outcomes of a limbus-based group with those of a fornix-based group who underwent trabeculectomy with mitomycin C (MMC).

Methods

Sixty-five eyes of 59 patients who had undergone trabeculectomy with MMC and who were observed for one year or more were included in the present study. A limbus-based conjunctival flap was used for 34 eyes of 31 patients and a fornix-based conjunctival flap for the other 31 eyes of 28 patients. The bleb morphologies were classified and compared after one year or more postoperatively according to the Moorfield Bleb Grading System, and intraocular pressure and success rates were evaluated.

Results

The central bleb vascularity of the limbus-based group was statistically significantly lower than that of the for-nix-based group (1.79 ± 0.64; 2.16 ± 0.73, p = 0.042). The risk of cystic bleb formation was higher in the limbus-based group (38.2%; 16.5%, p = 0.047). There were no differences in the IOP or success rate between the two groups.

Conclusions

There were no differences between the two groups with regard to the IOP or cumulative success rate. However, in the fornix-based group, the central bleb vascularity was lower and the risk of avascular cystic bleb formation was higher than those in the limbus-based group.

References

1. Cairns JE. Trabeculectomy. Preliminary report of a new method. Am J Ophthalmol. 1968; 66:673–9.
2. Picht G, Grehn F. Classification of filtering blebs in trabeculectomy: biomicroscopy and functionality. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1998; 9:2–8.
crossref
3. Soltau JB, Rothman RF, Budenz DL, et al. Risk factors for glaucoma filtering bleb infections. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000; 118:338–42.
crossref
4. Watson PG. Surgery of the glaucomas. Br J Ophthalmol. 1972; 56:299–306.
crossref
5. Sanders R, MacEwen CJ, Haining WM. Trabeculectomy: effect of varying the surgical site. Eye. 1993; 7:440–3.
6. Negi AK, Kiel AW, Vernon SA. Does the site of filtration influence the medium to long term intraocular pressure control following mi-crotrabeculectomy in low risk eyes? Br J Ophthalmol. 2004; 88:1008–11.
crossref
7. Kronfeld FC. The chemical demonstration of transconjunctival passage of aqueous after antiglaucomatous operations. Am J Ophthalmol. 1952; 35:38–45.
crossref
8. Cantor LB, Mantravadi A, WuDunn D, et al. Morphologic classification of filtering blebs after glaucoma filtration surgery: the Indiana Bleb Appearance Grading Scale. J Glaucoma. 2003; 12:266–71.
crossref
9. Wells AP, Crowston JG, Marks J, et al. A pilot study of system for grading of drainage blebs after glaucoma surgery. J Glaucoma. 2004; 13:454–60.
10. Yamamoto T, Sakuma T, Kitazawa Y. An ultrasound biomicro-scopic study of filtering blebs after mitomycin C trabeculectomy. Ophthalmology. 1995; 102:1770–6.
11. Pavlin CJ, Harasiewicz K, Foster FS. Ultrasound biomicroscopy of anterior segment structures in normal and glaucomatous eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 1992; 113:381–9.
crossref
12. Shin JY, Kang SY, Kim NR, et al. The morphometric analysis of filtering bleb using anterior segment optical coherence tomography: pilot study. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2010; 51:234–40.
crossref
13. Wells AP, Ashraff NN, Hall RC, Purdie G. Comparison of two clinical bleb grading systems. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113:77–83.
crossref
14. el Sayyad F, el-Rashood A, Helal M, et al. Fornix-based versus lim-bal-based conjunctival flaps in initial trabeculectomy with postoperative 5-fluorouracil: four-year followup findings. J Glaucoma. 1999; 8:124–8.
15. Alwitry A, Patel V, King AW. Fornix vs limbal-based trabeculectomy with mitomycin C. Eye. 2005; 19:631–6.
crossref
16. Traverso CE, Tomey KF, Antonios S. Limbal- vs fornix-based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps. Am J Ophthalmol. 1987; 104:28–32.
crossref
17. Shuster JN, Krupin T, Kolker AE, Becker B. Limbus- v for-nix-based conjunctival flap in trabeculectomy. A long-term randomized study. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984; 102:361–2.
18. Brincker P, Kessing SV. Limbus-based versus fornix-based conjunctival flap in glaucoma filtering surgery. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1992; 70:641–4.
crossref
19. Wells AP, Cordeiro MF, Bunce C, Khaw PT. Cystic bleb formation and related complications in limbus- versus fornix-based conjunctival flaps in pediatric and young adult trabeculectomy with mitomycin C. Ophthalmology. 2003; 110:2192–7.
crossref
20. Agbeja AM, Dutton GN. Conjunctival incisions for trabeculectomy and their relationship to the type of bleb formation - a pre-liminary study. Eye. 1987; 1:738–43.
21. Wee WR, Youn DH. Trabeculectomy using a fornix-based conjunctival flap. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1986; 27:819–22.
22. Boo SD, Jun SY, Hong YJ. A clinical comparision of the effect of limbal-based vs fornix-based conjunctival flaps in trabeculectomy. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1990; 31:1439–44.
23. Shin IH, Hyung SM. Outcome of fornix-based versus limbal-based conjunctival flaps in trabeculectomy with mitomycin C. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2003; 44:2829–37.

Figure 1.
Standard photographs of Moorfields bleb grading system.
jkos-52-1461f1.tif
Figure 2.
Morphology of conjunctival blebs following limbus-based group.
jkos-52-1461f2.tif
Figure 3.
Morphology of conjunctival blebs following fornix-based group.
jkos-52-1461f3.tif
Figure 4.
Postoperative cumulative success rates of the two surgical groups (Kaplan-Meier survival curve). A blue line is fornix-based group and a green line is limbus-based group. Left graph: group without medication, there is no significant difference (p = 0.073, Log rank test). Right graph: group with medication, There is also no significant difference (p = 0.686, Log rank test).
jkos-52-1461f4.tif
Table 1.
Preoperative characteristics of the two surgical groups
  Limbus-based group Fornix-based group p-value
Number of patients (eye) 31 (34) 28 (31)  
Sex (M/F) 20/11 19/9 0.787
Age (mean ± SD, yr) 59.2 ± 12.0 59.2 ± 15.9 0.990
Previous filtering surgery 3 1 0.615
Other previous intraocular surgery 6 10 0.172
Glaucoma type      
 POAG 21 21  
 CACG 7 4  
 Secondary glaucoma 5 3  
 Neovascular glaucoma 1 2  
 PXG 0 1  
Preoperative intraocular pressure (mean ± SD, mm Hg) 28.1 ± 7.5 28.8 ± 7.7 0.687
Duration of followup (mean ± SD, mon) 21.0 ± 4.4 20.8 ± 4.5 0.862

POAG = primary openangle glaucoma; CACG = chronic angle-closure glaucoma; PXG = pseudoexfoliative glaucoma.

Chi-square test

Student's t-test

Fisher exact test.

Table 2.
Comparision of bleb morphology between the two surgical groups after 1 year of followup
Group Bleb area 1a Bleb area 1b Bleb height Vascularity 3a Vascularity 3b Vascularity 3c
Limbus-based 1.85 ± 0.61 2.47 ± 0.71 1.66 ± 0.66 1.79 ± 0.64 2.29 ± 0.80 2.76 ± 0.82
Fornix-based 2.00 ± 0.52 2.55 ± 0.62 1.87 ± 0.67 2.16 ± 0.73 2.42 ± 0.72 2.65 ± 0.75
p-value 0.282 0.726 0.214 0.042 0.505 0.577

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

1a = the central demarcated area of the bleb; 1b = the maximal area of the bleb; 3a = the vascularity of the central bleb; 3b = the vascularity of the peripheral bleb; 3c = the vascularity of the peripheral non-bleb-related conjunctiva.

Mann-Whitney U test.

Table 3.
Preoperative and postoperative intraocular pressure (mm Hg) after trabeculectomy with mitomycin C
  Limbus-based group Number of eyes examined Fornix-based group Number of eyes examined p-value
Preoperative 28.1 ± 7.5 34 28.8 ± 7.7 31 0.687
Postoperative          
 1 month 13.3 ± 4.2 34 11.9 ± 3.9 31 0.219
 6 months 11.7 ± 3.3 34 11.0 ± 2.8 31 0.419
 12 months 11.6 ± 3.0 34 10.3 ± 2.8 31 0.154
 18 months 12.4 ± 3.5 28 11.7 ± 3.6 25 0.616
 24 months 12.0 ± 3.0 23 11.7 ± 2.5 19 0.738

Values are presented as mean ± SD or number.

Student's t-test.

Table 4.
Postoperative success rates of the two surgical groups
  Limbus-based group Fornix-based group p-value
Success rate without medication      
 6 months 19/34 (55.9) 22/31 (71.0) 0.208
 12 months 18/34 (52.9) 21/31 (67.7) 0.224
 18 momths 15/28 (53.6) 17/25 (68.0) 0.284
 24 months 12/23 (52.2) 12/19 (63.2) 0.474
Success rate with medication      
 6 months 30/34 (88.2) 28/31 (90.3) 0.786
 12 months 30/34 (88.2) 27/31 (87.1) 0.889
 18 months 24/28 (85.7) 22/25 (88.0) 0.806
 24 months 19/23 (82.6) 16/19 (84.2) 0.890

Values are presented as number (%).

Chi-square test.

TOOLS
Similar articles