Title: Attitudes of consultant ophthalmologists in the UK to initial management of glaucoma patients presenting with severe visual field loss: a national survey
Abstract: Clinical & Experimental OphthalmologyVolume 39, Issue 9 p. 858-864 Attitudes of consultant ophthalmologists in the UK to initial management of glaucoma patients presenting with severe visual field loss: a national survey Richard Stead MBChB, Richard Stead MBChB Department of Ophthalmology, Nottingham University NHS Trust, Queens Medical Centre, NottinghamSearch for more papers by this authorAugusto Azuara-Blanco PhD, Augusto Azuara-Blanco PhD Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UKSearch for more papers by this authorAnthony J King MD, Corresponding Author Anthony J King MD Department of Ophthalmology, Nottingham University NHS Trust, Queens Medical Centre, NottinghamMr Anthony J King, Department of Ophthalmology, Nottingham University NHS Trust, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Richard Stead MBChB, Richard Stead MBChB Department of Ophthalmology, Nottingham University NHS Trust, Queens Medical Centre, NottinghamSearch for more papers by this authorAugusto Azuara-Blanco PhD, Augusto Azuara-Blanco PhD Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UKSearch for more papers by this authorAnthony J King MD, Corresponding Author Anthony J King MD Department of Ophthalmology, Nottingham University NHS Trust, Queens Medical Centre, NottinghamMr Anthony J King, Department of Ophthalmology, Nottingham University NHS Trust, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 18 April 2011 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2011.02574.xCitations: 22 Meeting presentation: Data presented at the UK and Eire Glaucoma Society Meeting, Liverpool, December 2009. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract Background: Recent National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidance suggests primary surgery should be offered to patients presenting with glaucoma with severe visual field loss. We undertook a survey of UK consultant ophthalmologists to determine if this represents current practice and explore attitudes towards managing patients with advanced glaucoma at presentation. Design: Questionnaire evaluation study. Participants: All consultant ophthalmologists currently practicing in the UK. Methods: A single-page questionnaire was posted to all consultants (n = 910) currently practicing in the UK along with a pre-paid return envelope. A second questionnaire was sent to non-responders (n = 459). Main Outcome Measures: Questionnaire responses. Results: 626 responses were received representing 68.8% of the population surveyed. 152 (24%) volunteered a specialist interest in glaucoma. Consensus opinion for both glaucoma specialists (64.9%) and non-glaucoma specialists (62.4%) was to start with primary medical therapy, most commonly citing surgical risk as the primary reason (23% and 22%, respectively) for this approach. Most felt the highest intraocular pressure measurement during follow up (measured in clinic) was the most important variable for prevention of further visual loss (60% of glaucoma specialists and 55% of non-glaucoma specialists). Eighty-three per cent of all responders suggested they would change their practice if evidence supporting primary surgery as a safe and more effective approach existed. Conclusions: Recent National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidance does not reflect the current management approach of UK ophthalmologists. The primary concern was related to potential complications of surgery although most practitioners would be willing to change their practice if evidence existed supporting primary surgery in patients presenting with advanced glaucoma. References 1 Odberg T. Visual field prognosis in advanced glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol 1987; 65 (Suppl.): 27–9. 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1987.tb02583.x PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 2 Mikelberg FS, Schulzer M, Drance SM, Lau W. The rate of progression of scotomas in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1986; 101: 1–6. 10.1016/0002-9394(86)90457-5 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 3 Wilson R, Walker AM, Dueker DK, Crick RP. Risk factors for rate of progression of glaucomatous visual field loss: a computer-based analysis. Arch Ophthalmol 1982; 100: 737–41. 10.1001/archopht.1982.01030030741002 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 4 Hattenhauer MG, Johnson DH, Ing HH et al. The probability of blindness from open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 2099–104. 10.1016/S0161-6420(98)91133-2 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 5 Grant WM, Burke JF Jr. Why do some people go blind from glaucoma? Ophthalmology 1982; 89: 991–8. 10.1016/S0161-6420(82)34675-8 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 6 Burr J, Azuara-Blanco A, Avenell A. Medical versus surgical interventions for open angle glaucoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; (2): CD004399. CASPubMedGoogle Scholar 7 Glaucoma; Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Open Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension CG85. (NICE) NIfHaCE, ed. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), 2009. Google Scholar 8 Vernon S. Glaucoma guidelines: help or hindrance? Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2009; 37: 641–3. 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2009.02126.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 9 Gore-Felton C, Koopman C, Bridges E, Thoresen C, Spiegel D. An example of maximizing survey return rates. Methodological issues for health professionals. Eval Health Prof 2002; 25: 152–68. 10.1177/01678702025002002 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 10 Siriwardena D, Edmunds B, Wormald RP, Khaw PT. National survey of antimetabolite use in glaucoma surgery in the United Kingdom. Br J Ophthalmol 2004; 88: 873–6. 10.1136/bjo.2003.034256 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 11 Sheth HG, Goel R, Jain S. UK national survey of prophylactic YAG iridotomy. Eye (Lond) 2005; 19: 981–4. 10.1038/sj.eye.6701696 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 12 Stalmans I, Gillis A, Lafaut AS, Zeyen T. Safe trabeculectomy technique: long term outcome. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90: 44–7. 10.1136/bjo.2005.072884 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 13 Jones E, Clarke J, Khaw PT. Recent advances in trabeculectomy technique. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2005; 16: 107–13. 10.1097/01.icu.0000156138.05323.6f PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 14 Edmunds B, Thompson JR, Salmon JF, Wormald RP. The National Survey of Trabeculectomy. III. Early and late complications. Eye (Lond) 2002; 16: 297–303. 10.1038/sj.eye.6700148 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 15 Singh K, Mehta K, Shaikh NM et al. Trabeculectomy with intraoperative mitomycin C versus 5-fluorouracil. Prospective randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 2305–9. 10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00391-2 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 16 Wong TT, Khaw PT, Aung T et al. The singapore 5-Fluorouracil trabeculectomy study: effects on intraocular pressure control and disease progression at 3 years. Ophthalmology 2009; 116: 175–84. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.09.049 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 17 Wells AP, Bunce C, Khaw PT. Flap and suture manipulation after trabeculectomy with adjustable sutures: titration of flow and intraocular pressure in guarded filtration surgery. J Glaucoma 2004; 13: 400–6. 10.1097/01.ijg.0000133387.82126.7c PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 18 Cillino S, Di Pace F, Casuccio A et al. Deep sclerectomy versus punch trabeculectomy with or without phacoemulsification: a randomized clinical trial. J Glaucoma 2004; 13: 500–6. 10.1097/01.ijg.0000137869.18156.81 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 19 Mendrinos E, Mermoud A, Shaarawy T. Nonpenetrating glaucoma surgery. Surv Ophthalmol 2008; 53: 592–630. 10.1016/j.survophthal.2008.08.023 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 20 Cheng JW, Xi GL, Wei RL, Cai JP, Li Y. Efficacy and tolerability of nonpenetrating glaucoma surgery augmented with mitomycin C in treatment of open-angle glaucoma: a meta-analysis. Can J Ophthalmol 2009; 44: 76–82. 10.3129/I08-165 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 21 Fukuchi T, Suda K, Nakatsue T, Hara H, Abe H. Midterm results and the problems of nonpenetrating lamellar trabeculectomy with mitomycin C for Japanese glaucoma patients. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2007; 51: 34–40. 10.1007/s10384-006-0381-6 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 22 Broadway DC, Chang LP. Trabeculectomy, risk factors for failure and the preoperative state of the conjunctiva. J Glaucoma 2001; 10: 237–49. 10.1097/00061198-200106000-00017 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 23 Broadway DC, Grierson I, Hitchings RA. Local effects of previous conjunctival incisional surgery and the subsequent outcome of filtration surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 1998; 125: 805–18. 10.1016/S0002-9394(98)00045-2 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 24 Broadway DC, Grierson I, O'Brien C, Hitchings RA. Adverse effects of topical antiglaucoma medication. II. The outcome of filtration surgery. Arch Ophthalmol 1994; 112: 1446–54. 10.1001/archopht.1994.01090230060021 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 25 Jay JL, Allan D. The benefit of early trabeculectomy versus conventional management in primary open angle glaucoma relative to severity of disease. Eye 1989; 3(Pt 5): 528–35. 10.1038/eye.1989.84 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 26 Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW et al. Interim clinical outcomes in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery. Ophthalmology 2001; 108: 1943–53. 10.1016/S0161-6420(01)00873-9 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 27 Migdal C, Gregory W, Hitchings R. Long-term functional outcome after early surgery compared with laser and medicine in open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1994; 101: 1651–6; discussion 57. 10.1016/S0161-6420(94)31120-1 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 28 Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Lichter PR, Niziol LM, Janz NK. Visual field progression in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study the impact of treatment and other baseline factors. Ophthalmology 2009; 116: 200–7. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.08.051 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 29 The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. The AGIS Investigators. Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 130: 429–40. 10.1016/S0002-9394(00)00538-9 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 30 Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Hussein M. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120: 1268–79. 10.1001/archopht.120.10.1268 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 31 Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002; 120: 701–13; discussion 829-30. 10.1001/archopht.120.6.701 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 32 Asrani S, Zeimer R, Wilensky J, Gieser D, Vitale S, Lindenmuth K. Large diurnal fluctuations in intraocular pressure are an independent risk factor in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2000; 9: 134–42. 10.1097/00061198-200004000-00002 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume39, Issue9December 2011Pages 858-864 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Publication Year: 2011
Publication Date: 2011-06-14
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref', 'pubmed']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 23
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot