The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Five-year Follow-up of the Fluorouracil Filtering Surgery Study
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and safety of subconjunctival 5- fluorouracil injections after trabeculectomy in patients with poor prognoses, to determine risk factors for surgical failure and to examine the relationship of intraocular pressure and visual function. METHODS: In this multicenter clinical trial, 213 patients with previous cataract surgery or previous failed filtering surgery were randomly assigned to receive either trabeculectomy alone or trabeculectomy with postoperative subconjunctival 5-fluorouracil injections. Measurements of intraocular pressure, visual acuity, and visual fields were performed throughout the five years, with the clinician masked to the treatment group. Failure was defined as a reoperation to control intraocular pressure or an intraocular pressure greater than 21 mm Hg at or after the first-year examination. RESULTS: Fifty-four (51%) of the 105 eyes in the 5-fluorouracil group and 80 (74%) of the 108 eyes in the standard filtering surgery group were classified as failures (P < .001, Mantel-Cox survival analysis). Risk factors for failure include high intraocular pressure, a short time interval after the last procedure involving a conjunctival incision, the number of procedures with conjunctival incisions, and Hispanic ethnicity. Patients in both treatment groups with controlled intraocular pressures were more likely to maintain visual acuity. Patients in the 5-fluorouracil group had a higher risk of late-onset bleb leaks (9% nine of 105) than those in the standard filtering surgery group (2% two of 108) (P = .032, Fisher's exact test). CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the use of subconjunctival 5-fluorouracil after trabeculectomy in eyes after previous cataract surgery or unsuccessful filtering surgery, but caution against its routine use in patients with good prognoses.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Preferred Practice Pattern®
Gedde, S. J., Vinod, K., Wright, M. M., Muir, K. W., Lind, J. T., Chen, P. P., Li, T., & Mansberger, S. L. (2021) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.10.022 · Cited by 474
Treatment Outcomes in the Primary Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study after 1 Year of Follow-up
Gedde, S. J., Feuer, W. J., Shi, W., Lim, K. S., Barton, K., Goyal, S., Ahmed, I. I. K., Brandt, J., Gedde, S., Banitt, M., et al. (2018) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.02.003 · Cited by 322
Late-Onset Bleb Leaks After Glaucoma Filtering Surgery
Greenfield, D. S. (1998) · Archives of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/archopht.116.4.443 · Cited by 258
Li, Z., Van Bergen, T., Van de Veire, S., Van de Vel, I., Moreau, H., Dewerchin, M., Maudgal, P. C., Zeyen, T., Spileers, W., Moons, L., et al. (2009) · Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.08-2662 · Cited by 223
Memarzadeh, F., Varma, R., Lin, L.-T., Parikh, J. G., Dustin, L., Alcaraz, A., & Eliott, D. (2009) · Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.08-2441 · Cited by 117
Metadata
- Authors
- THE FLUOROURACIL FILTERING SURGERY STUDY GROUP
- Venue
- American Journal of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1996-04
- Volume
- 121
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 349-366
- ISSN
- 0002-9394 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3142292247
- Cited by
- 526
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 32.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Five-year Follow-up of the Fluorouracil Filtering Surgery Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0002-9394(14)70431-3
- The paper
- THE FLUOROURACIL FILTERING SURGERY STUDY GROUP. (1996). Five-year Follow-up of the Fluorouracil Filtering Surgery Study. American Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9394(14)70431-3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.