This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Glaucoma  • Prostheses/ Implants  • Alert me on articles by topic

Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:105-107.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Ever since MacKenzie in the 1830s first suggested filtration surgery as a strategy for combating glaucomatous progression,¹ clinicians have remained determined to improve the technique in an effort to maximize success and reduce complications. As a profession we have been largely successful, considering the introduction of the guarded trabeculectomy by Sugar² in 1961 and the subsequent enhancement of the procedure with antifibrotic agents such as fluorouracil and mitomycin C.³ Although many would argue that the latter modification is a mixed blessing, most would agree that with proper patient selection, meticulous surgical technique, and careful follow-up, the benefits of antifibrotic-enhanced filtration surgery outweigh the risks. Therefore, given the current state of the art of trabeculectomy, the only obvious first choice for eyes that either have demonstrated progression or may be at high risk for progression is without a doubt the trabeculectomy. In fact, most patients who are being considered for surgical . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Eve J. Higginbotham, MD
From the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore.