My situation is different from yours but I will give you my thoughts anyway.
I was 51 when I was diagnosed with low tension glaucoma 3 years ago.  I have
significant optic nerve damage and significant field of vision loss in the
left eye.  Right eye has good field of vision. [a big consideration]  I was
also advised to undergo a trab and was told of the healing issues as 50 was
still "young."

I've kind of given up posting or reading here because you will not likely
find here (or organized anywhere else) the group of patients who declined to
undergo a trab or any sort of eye surgery (eg laser) for glaucoma.  You will
not read their reasons for not undergoing surgery.  You will read about the
more or less successful surgeries and even the unsuccessful surgeries, but
it is unlikely you'll learn why some (perhaps, many of us) chose never to
undergo a trab.  You will not hear from those who declined a trab and never
went blind.  As far as I know, there is no study following up on those who
CHOSE not to undergo trab.  I emphasize "chose" because the posters here are
homogeneous and generally swear by the procedure.  When I dared to suggest
such a study, I was accused by posters of proposing to withhold treatment
from patients--poor misunderstood me
.
My thoughts... To begin with, it seems that going blind is a foregone
conclusion; I chose not to undergo a trab or any glaucoma surgery because
that, strictly speaking, is simply not so.  The chances are that you
will--there is apparently a much smaller chance you may remain status quo.
The only definite thing I understand from all of this (reading posts, my
reading up in general, talking to  my glaucoma specialists--two of the tops
in Manhattan) is that whatever damage has occurred is irreversible...as of
today.  I  am aware lowering the pressure reduces the chances of further
damage, but you could have a "successful" surgery and indeed lower your
pressures, and still go blind.  You won't likely hear from this group
either.

Worse, there are, IMHO, so many things that could go wrong (eg pressure
becoming too low) even aside from the usual infection or malpractice issues
that I wondered if any such eye surgery was justified when I could still go
blind even if nothing at all went wrong AND my pressures were lowered.  When
both eyes have significant vision loss and your pressures are sky high, and
you're younger with plenty of years left to enjoy and require good sight,
then you may not have "anything to lose" by a trab or other procedures.
Nonetheless, you might consider the recovery period, the different
aggravations that doctors might consider trivial (such as cataracts which
are promoted by the surgery--my doc said basically "so what, cataracts are
curable"), additional drops, the need for recurring procedures, blurry
vision, etc. etc which you should get your doctor to spell out in detail.

I am not a doctor and would welcome a doctor's opinion on whether s/he has
ever treated or followed up on a similar patient who declined surgery.

I hope my thoughts balance the picture.

You are right that this is an open forum for expression of ideas, and
I support you in your right to air yours, even if our approaches may
be different.  Certainly if I had been through all you had with your
eyes, I would probably have a similar view.  Sorry to hear about all
you've gone through.   No, I don't find you or your approach
"offensive," Dave, it's just not the way I handle things with docs I
go to.  For example, when I lost my Mom to cancer a few years ago, I
knew she had a rare type of sarcoma in the abdomen.  I searched the
internet to find the best sarcoma guy at Sloan-Kettering in NY.  I
read all I could find before I talked to the guy.  Ten different
sources told me this guy was the local guru on sarcomas in NY.  Then
when the time came, I didn't need to check with him about his
credentials or how often he had seen cases like my Mom's.  I could
tell immediately by his pompous attitude that he had tremendous
confidence in his treatment regimen...I just wanted to know if he was
going to recommend chemo, what kind, surgery, or both chemo and
surgery.  Again, the problem for me is that a person can talk the
talk, but that doesn't mean he can walk the walk.  Unfortunately,
you've learned that the hard way.
    Oh, by the way, the average reimbursement for a trab is not
"multi-thousands of dollars."  It's generally between $900 and $1200
depending on the area its done and which insurer is paying.  That also
includes ALL of the postoperative visits for 90 days after surgery,
which can be quite a few after a trab.  I may see a postop patient 15
times after a trab during the first 3 months, each time for free.  I
assure you, no one is getting rich off of glaucoma surgery.   You'd
have to do more than a handful of trabs each week to pay back the over
$100,000 of student loans that most students leave med school with
these days.  Don't get me wrong, I'm sure your doc isn't ready for the
bread line.  It's really cataract surgery that pays the bills in the
office, not trabs (too much work and heartache for doctor and patient
alike).  Anyway, I wish you the best, Dave,
Rick Cohn, MD
Winter Park, FL