Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Emerging perspectives in quality of life after trabeculectomy surgery

Eye volume 39, pages 1394–1399 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background/Objectives

Trabeculectomy is the gold standard surgery in treatment of glaucoma but there is little reported on its early impact in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Here we characterise HRQoL in the early post-operative period with two generic patient-reported outcome measures tools (PROMs), the EQ-5D and SF-6D, and compare them to visual-related and glaucoma-specific PROMs, the VF-25 and GUI.

Subjects/Methods

We prospectively enrolled 168 patients with failed medical treatment undergoing trabeculectomy and assessed HRQoL at baseline and in the post-operative period using the PROMs above. Paired t-tests, ANOVA and linear regression tests were used to analyse outcomes.

Results

A significant drop in HRQoL was identified in the first month post-operatively with the SF-6D, the VF-25 and the GUI but not with the EQ-5D. This drop was reversed to pre-operative levels by month 3. Four dimensions of HRQoL, including physical functioning, social functioning and adaptation to physical and to emotional roles had the most impact on the generic HRQoL. Visual acuity dropped one line in the operated eye at month 1 and was the only measurable clinical factor contributing to HRQoL.

Conclusions

The early post-operative period in trabeculectomy surgery is associated with a reversible loss of HRQoL, which is the result of transient worsening of vision but also physical, emotional and social restrictions caused by the busy medication regimen and drastic lifestyle changes. The SF-6D was better than the EQ-5D at picking up changes in HRQoL.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Results from all the PROMs used in this study at baseline and at 1, 3 and 6 months post-op.
Fig. 2: Results from the four domains of the SF-36 showed a significant change in post-op.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data will be available beginning 24 months and ending five years after publication of this paper. Data will be available for researchers who provide a methodologically sound scientific proposal, which has been approved by an ethics committee. Proof of the latter should be provided. Analyses should achieve the aims reported in the approved proposal. Requests for data sharing should be made to the corresponding author.

References

  1. Flaxman SR, Bourne RRA, Resnikoff S, Ackland P, Braithwaite T, Cicinelli MV, et al. Global causes of blindness and distance vision impairment 1990-2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5:e1221–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Quartilho A, Simkiss P, Zekite A, Xing W, Wormald R, Bunce C. Leading causes of certifiable visual loss in England and Wales during the year ending 31 March 2013. Eye. 2016;30:602–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Schuster AK, Erb C, Hoffmann EM, Dietlein T, Pfeiffer N. The diagnosis and treatment of glaucoma. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2020;117:225–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kulkarni BB, Leighton P, King AJ. Exploring patients’ expectations and preferences of glaucoma surgery outcomes to facilitate healthcare delivery and inform future glaucoma research. Br J Ophthalmol. 2019;103:1850–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bhargava JS, Bhan-Bhargava A, Foss AJ, King AJ. Views of glaucoma patients on provision of follow-up care; an assessment of patient preferences by conjoint analysis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2018;92:1601–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. King AJ, Rotchford AP, Alwitry A, Moodie J. Frequency of bleb manipulations after trabeculectomy surgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:873–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Chang M, Wang H, Niu T. Influence of psychological nursing on negative emotion and sleep quality of glaucoma trabeculectomy patients. Am J Transl Res. 2021;13:8415–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Musch DC, Lichter PR, Guire KE, Standardi CL. The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: study design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:653–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Miglior S, Zeyen T, Pfeiffer N, Cunha-Vaz J, Torri V, Adamsons I, et al. The European glaucoma prevention study design and baseline description of the participants. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:1612–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, Parrish RK, Heuer DK, Brandt JD Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study Group The tube versus trabeculectomy study: design and baseline characteristics of study patients. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140:275–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gazzard G, Konstantakopoulou E, Garway-Heath D, Garg A, Vickerstaff V, Hunter R, et al. Selective laser trabeculoplasty versus eye drops for first-line treatment of ocular hypertension and glaucoma (LiGHT): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2019;393:1505–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. King AJ, Hudson J, Fernie G, Kernohan A, Azuara-Blanco A, Burr J, et al. TAGS Study Group. Primary trabeculectomy for advanced glaucoma: pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (TAGS). BMJ. 2021;373–84. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1014.

  13. Ismail R, Azuara-Blanco A, Ramsay CR. Consensus on outcome measures for glaucoma effectiveness trials: results from a Delphi and nominal group technique approaches. J Glaucoma. 2016;25:539–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bozzani FM, Alavi Y, Jofre-Bonet M, Kuper H. A comparison of the sensitivity of EQ-5D, SF-6D and TTO utility values to changes in vision and perceived visual function in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. BMC Ophthalmol. 2012;12:43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Braithwaite T, Calvert M, Gray A, Pesudovs K, Denniston AK. The use of patient-reported outcome research in modern ophthalmology: impact on clinical trials and routine clinical practice. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2019;10:9–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Browne C, Brazier J, Carlton J, Alavi Y, Jofre-Bonet M. Estimating quality-adjusted life years from patient-reported visual functioning. Eye. 2012;26:1295–301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Quaranta L, Riva I, Gerardi C, Oddone F, Floriani I, Konstas AG. Quality of life in glaucoma: a review of the literature. Adv Ther. 2016;33:959–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Burr JM, Kilonzo M, Vale L, Ryan M. Developing a preference-based Glaucoma Utility Index using a discrete choice experiment. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84:797–808.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kotecha A, Feuer WJ, Barton K, Gedde SJ, Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study Group Quality of life in the Tube versus Trabeculectomy Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;17:228–35.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pahlitzsch M, Klamann MK, Pahlitzsch ML, Gonnermann J, Torun N, Bertelmann E. Is there a change in the quality of life comparing the micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) and the filtration technique trabeculectomy in glaucoma patients? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;255:351–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. EQ-5D-3L user guide. EuroQol Research Foundation; 2018.

  22. SF-36 item scoring instructions. Available from: https://www.rand.org/health-care/surveys_tools/mos/36-item-short-form/terms.html. Accessed 30 Aug 2022.

  23. Kim SK, Kim SH, Jo MW, Lee SI. Estimation of minimally important differences in the EQ-5D and SF-6D indices and their utility in stroke. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funded by Glaucoma UK.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal Derby Hospital, University Hospitals Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK

    Ricardo D. S. Peixoto

  2. University Hospitals Southampton, Southampton, UK

    Francesco Stringa

  3. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK

    Renee Cammack & Anthony J. King

  4. Department of Ophthalmology, York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Harrogate and District Foundation Trust, York, UK

    Joanna Liput

Authors
  1. Ricardo D. S. Peixoto
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesco Stringa
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Renee Cammack
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joanna Liput
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anthony J. King
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RDSP was responsible for data analysis and interpretation, writing of manuscript and submission. FS was responsible for data analysis and manuscript revision. RC was responsible for data collection and organisation. JL contributed with study design and manuscript revision. AWK did study design, data collection and revision of manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ricardo D. S. Peixoto.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peixoto, R.D.S., Stringa, F., Cammack, R. et al. Emerging perspectives in quality of life after trabeculectomy surgery. Eye 39, 1394–1399 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-025-03636-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-025-03636-1

Search

Advanced search

Quick links