Comparison of bleb morphologies between phacoemulsification combined with Ex-PRESS mini shunt implantation, phacotrabeculectomy and trabeculectomy alone: a two-year retrospective in vivo confocal microscopy study

Table 1 Demographic table

	Phaco-ExPRESS (n = 32)	Phaco-Trab (n = 25)	Trab (n = 32)	P value
Gender (M/F)	8/14	14/11	13/19	P = 0.96
Age (Mean ± SD)	74.19 ± 5.25	71.24 ± 8.94	57.21 ± 14.32	†P < 0.01 †P = 0.39 §P < 0.01
MD (Mean ± SD)	-15...30 ± 9.00	-19.85 ± 9.67	-20.15 ± 8.37	†P = 0.27 §P = 0.23
PSD (Mean ± SD)	7.65 ± 3.53	7.27 ± 3.31	8.81 ± 4.30	†P = 0.99 §P = 0.90
BCVA LogMAR (Mean ± SD)	0.33 ± 0.23	0.45 ± 0.18	0.39 ± 0.24	†P::;0.11 §P = 071
CCT (Mean ± SD)	542.36 ± 21.81	540.20 ± 25.95	528.85 ± 31.11	†P = 0.99 §P = 0.24
CID Ratio (Mean ± SD)	0.84 ± 0.12	0.82 ± 0.13	0.87 ± 0.17	†P-0.99 §P = 098

The patient’s baseline characteristics. M/F: Male/Female; MD: mean deviation; PSD: pattern standard deviation, BCVA: best corrected visual acuity; CCT: central corneal thickness; C/D Ratio: cup to disc ratio, †: Phaco-Trab vs. Trab, ‡: Phaco-ExPRESS vs. Phaco-Trab, §: Phaco-ExPRESS vs. Trab. A p-value < 0.05 was considered as significant. Patients in the Phaco-ExPRESS and the Phaco-Trab group were older than the Trab group (Phaco-ExPRESS vs. Trab, p < 0.01; Phaco-Trab vs. Trab, p < 0.01). All other baseline characteristics showed no statistical significance among the three groups

ISSN: 1471-2415