Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Postoperative complications in glaucoma surgery: literature review-based recommendations to improve reporting consistency
  1. Francesco Stringa1,
  2. Alan Kastner2,
  3. Dale Heuer3,4,
  4. Keith Barton5,
  5. Anthony J King6
  1. 1 Ophthalmology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
  2. 2 Ophthalmology, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
  3. 3 Ophthalmology, University of California, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA
  4. 4 Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, California, USA
  5. 5 Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  6. 6 Ophthalmology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Mr Anthony J King, Ophthalmology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK; Anthony.King{at}


Aims To recommend a list of complications of glaucoma surgery to be used in future glaucoma surgery research and reporting by exploring the spectrum of complications’ names, the variety of definitions and time frames used for reporting them in glaucoma surgical trials.

Methods Complications’ names, definitions and time frames identified from a previously conducted systematic review of glaucoma surgery trials (registration number: CRD42019121226) were reviewed. Only postoperative complications were considered. Surgical techniques described in the papers from the previous systematic review were retrieved and grouped according their mechanism of action.

Reviewers independently recommended each complication’s inclusion or exclusion in a list to be proposed as a potential standard for reporting in glaucoma interventions. A literature-based definition of a ‘surgical complication’ was used to inform these decisions. Recorded complication’s details were used to inform the development of clinically relevant definitions, a consensus-driven exercise between reviewers resolved disagreements.

Results We identified 48/111 (43.2%) of the reported complications as suitable for inclusion, of which 17 were merged into other included complications having a broader meaning making up a final table of 32 postoperative complications. For 25 of them, the authors kept ‘names’ that were previously used in the systematic review, but provided a definition that was not mentioned in these papers. Five included complications were given both ‘names’ and definitions not previously mentioned. The authors maintained the name and definition for one complication. There were 16 complications that were in common to all the procedures retrieved from the previous review.

Conclusions We propose a table of revised names and comprehensive definitions of postoperative complications, to simplify the process of reporting complications after glaucoma surgery and to improve consistency among surgical trials.

  • glaucoma
  • treatment surgery
  • anterior chamber

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

View Full Text


  • Contributors FS: conceptualisation, visualisation, methodology, writing-original draft. AJK: resources, data curation, formal analysis, writing-review and editing, visualisation. DH: writing-review and editing, resources. KB: resources, writing-review and editing. AJK: conceptualisation, supervision, writing-reviewing and editing, project administration

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Linked Articles

  • Highlights from this issue
    Frank Larkin