Skip to main content
Log in

Fornix- vs. limbus-based flaps in combined phacoemulsification and trabeculectomy

  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We studied prospectively the results of limbus-versus fornix-based flaps in patients undergoing combined trabeculectomy and phacoemulsification. We found no significant difference at six months postoperatively in the level of intraocular pressure between the limbus-(16.1 ± 4.1 mm Hg) and fornix- (14.0 ± 3.4 mm Hg, p = 0.161) based groups, or in the number of glaucoma medications (p = 0.0750). The highest intraocular pressure recorded within the first postoperative month was similar between groups (18.4 ± 6.9 mm Hg for limbus and 18.5 ± 5.5 mm Hg for fornix, p > 0.900). Postoperative bleb height, extent, and vascularity, as well as chamber depth were statistically similar between groups (p > 0.05). Postoperative complications were similar between groups. This study indicates that both fornix- and limbus-based flaps may be used safely and effectively when performing a trabeculectomy combined with phacoemulsification.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stewart WC. Clinical Practice of Glaucoma. Thorofare, NJ: SLACK, Inc., 1990: 229–239, 340–341.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mao LK, Stewart WC, Shields MB. Correlation between intraocular pressure control and progressive glaucomatous damage in primary open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1991; 111: 51–55.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Stewart WC, Reid KK, Pitts RA. The results of trabeculectomy surgery in African-American versus white glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma 1993; 2: 236–240.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Book SA. Essentials of Statistics. New York: Mc-Graw Hill, 1978: 117–122, 205–215.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Swinscow TDV. Statistics at Square One. London: British Medical Association, 1976: 54–57.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Moses LE, Emerson JD, Hosseini H. Statistics in practice. Analyzing data from ordered categories. New Engl J Med 1984; 311: 442–448.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Luntz MH. Trabeculectomy using a fornix-based conjunctival flap and tightly sutured scleral flap. Ophthalmology 1980; 87: 985–989.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Shuster JN, Krupin T, Kolker AE, Becker B. Limbus-vs fornix-based conjunctival flap in trabeculectomy. A long-term randomized study. Arch Ophthalmol 1984; 102: 361–362.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Traverso CE, Tomey KF, Antonios S. Limbal- vs. fornix-based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps. Am J Ophthalmol 1987; 104: 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Reichert R, Stewart WC, Shields MB. Limbus-based versus fornix-based conjunctival flaps in trabeculectomy. Ophthalmic Surg 1987; 18: 672–676.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Murchison JF, Shields MB. Limbus-based vs fornix-based conjunctival flaps in combined extracapsular cataract surgery and glaucoma filtering procedure. Am J Ophthalmol 1990; 109: 709–715.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lyle WA, Jin JC. Comparison of a 3- and 6-mm incision in combined phacoemulsification and trabeculectomy. Am J Ophthalmol 1991; 111: 189–196.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Terry S. Combined no-stitch phacoemulsification cataract extraction with foldable silicone intraocular implant and holmium laser sclerostomy followed by 5-FU injections. Ophthalmic Surg 1992; 23: 218–219.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stewart, W.C., Crinkley, C.M.C. & Carlson, A.N. Fornix- vs. limbus-based flaps in combined phacoemulsification and trabeculectomy. Doc Ophthalmol 88, 141–151 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01204611

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01204611

Key words

Navigation