Survey of Glaucoma Surgical Preferences and Post-operative Care in the United Kingdom
Overview
Affiliations
Background: To evaluate the spectrum of glaucoma surgery and the post-operative follow-up regimes undertaken among glaucoma specialists in the United Kingdom.
Design: National survey.
Participants: Seventy-five glaucoma specialists (consultants and fellows).
Methods: An eight-question survey was emailed to all glaucoma subspecialists members of the United Kingdom and Eire Glaucoma Society.
Main Outcome Measures: Surgery undertaken, post-operative management, awareness of intervention tariff and handling of the follow-up burden generated through surgery.
Results: Almost all the participants (74/75: 99%) routinely performed trabeculectomy, 54 responders (72%) undertook tube surgery and Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS) was more frequently undertaken (33.0%) than non-penetrating surgery (23%). In general, for patients with advanced glaucoma requiring a low target intraocular pressure (IOP), the most frequent primary intervention was trabeculectomy (99%), followed by tubes (64%). Similarly, in patients with less advanced glaucoma requiring moderate target IOP, participants preferred trabeculectomy (99%), followed by MIGS (60%). By the first 6 months after the procedure, trabeculectomy and Baerveldt tube implant required a larger number of postoperative visits (9 and 7, respectively), than iStent® and non-penetrating deep sclerectomy (3 and 5, respectively). The majority of participants were not aware of the costs of their interventions.
Conclusions: A wide variety of glaucoma surgery techniques are undertaken. Post-operative follow-up regimes are variable between techniques and for surgeons using the same technique. Trabeculectomy requires more follow-up than any other intervention. For patients requiring low IOP, trabeculectomy is the operation of choice for most surgeons.
Five-year follow-up with the PreserFlo MicroShunt for open-angle glaucoma.
Scheres L, Kujovic-Aleksov S, Winkens B, de Crom R, Webers C, Beckers H Eye (Lond). 2025; .
PMID: 39979610 DOI: 10.1038/s41433-025-03707-3.
Pereira I E, Gomide Vilela de S Franco C, Alves Pereira A, Teno B, Lucena-Neto F, Faria B Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):30934.
PMID: 39730674 PMC: 11680946. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-81837-6.
Landers J, Mullany S, Craig J Br J Ophthalmol. 2023; 108(5):679-686.
PMID: 37541768 PMC: 11137456. DOI: 10.1136/bjo-2023-323526.
Hassanpour K, Kanavi M, Daftarian N, Samaeili A, Suri F, Pakravan M J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2023; 17(4):486-496.
PMID: 36620705 PMC: 9806307. DOI: 10.18502/jovr.v17i4.12300.
Kuet M, Azuara-Blanco A, Barton K, King A Eye (Lond). 2022; 37(11):2252-2256.
PMID: 36477732 PMC: 9735154. DOI: 10.1038/s41433-022-02326-6.