Ten-Year Clinical Outcomes Of Acute Primary Angle Closure Randomized To Receive Early Phacoemulsification Versus Laser Peripheral Iridotomy

Purpose:To compare the 10-year clinical outcomes of eyes with acute primary angle closure (APAC) randomized to receive either early phacoemulsification or laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI).Methods:Sixty-two APAC patients, who underwent either early phacoemulsification (phaco group) or laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI group) in a previous randomized controlled trial, were invited for assessment 10 years after the interventions. The results of the 2 groups were compared.Results:Forty of 62 patients (64.5%; 19 in phaco group and 21 from LPI group) were examined. None of them underwent additional glaucoma procedure but 15 (71.4%) patients in the LPI group received lens extraction before this assessment. The mean follow-up duration was 10.7 +/- 0.7 years. The phaco group used less medication (0.16 +/- 0.37 vs. 0.76 +/- 1.09 bottle per eye, P=0.028), had less extensive anterior synechiae (120.0 +/- 116.12 vs. 244.3 +/- 139.8 degree, P=0.010), and greater mean Shaffer gonioscopy grading (1.79 +/- 0.84 vs. 1.40 +/- 0.87; P=0.021) than the LPI group. Five eyes had persistent intraocular pressure elevation of >21 mm Hg in 2 consecutive visits and 4 eyes had blindness (best-corrected visual acuity worse than 6/60 and/or central visual field of <20 degree) in the LPI group, compared with none in the phaco group (P=0.022 and 0.045, respectively). There was no significant difference in the mean intraocular pressure, best-corrected visual acuity, and the number of eyes with visual field progression.Conclusion:At 10 years, APAC eyes that underwent early phacoemulsification required less medication, less peripheral anterior synechiae, lower incidence of intraocular pressure elevation and a lower incidence of blindness compared with APAC eyes that underwent initial LPI.