Quality of Life After Glaucoma Surgery: Evaluating the Patient Perspective Across Surgical Options

Glaucoma surgery currently relies on a wide therapeutic arsenal, ranging from conventional filtering surgeries to minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS). These techniques offer distinct efficacy and safety profiles, allowing tailored management across a broad spectrum of patients. Traditionally, surgical success has been evaluated using objective clinical outcomes, such as intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction and decreased reliance on topical treatments. However, the shift toward patient-centered medicine now requires consideration of the patient's perspective, including their subjective experience and the impact of treatment on quality of life. In this context, quality-of-life assessment has become a key component, promoting therapeutic alliance and patient adherence to care pathways. Despite its importance, few studies have evaluated and compared quality of life after glaucoma surgery using comparable surgical techniques. Furthermore, to our knowledge, no study has specifically assessed the independent effect of postoperative follow-up on quality of life after filtering surgery with a bleb. Given that postoperative management can be prolonged and demanding, it may significantly influence patients' perceptions of surgical outcomes and overall well-being. This study aims to address these gaps by providing a more comprehensive evaluation of the impact of glaucoma surgery beyond traditional clinical outcomes. It may represent a first step toward the development of a more appropriate assessment tool that incorporates the realities of postoperative follow-up and the specific experiences of patients undergoing filtering surgery. The study is based on the following hypotheses: filtering glaucoma surgery preserves patients' quality of life, with a stable NEI VFQ-25 score at six months postoperatively; postoperative quality of life may be influenced by the patient's postoperative care pathway; and quality-of-life scores remain correlated with objective clinical parameters, including intraocular pressure, visual acuity, medical treatment burden, and visual field damage.