ArticleBMC biomedical engineering2020
A novel suprachoroidal microinvasive glaucoma implant: in vivo biocompatibility and biointegration.
Article in BMC biomedical engineering, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biotissue stent for supraciliary outflow in open-angle glaucoma patients: surgical procedure and first clinical results of an aqueous drainage biostent.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2024Trial
- Enabling adaptability and hydraulic resistance in minimally invasive glaucoma surgery using an architecture-driven approach.iScience · 2026Article
- Anterior-Segment Optical Coherence Tomography Imaging of Patients Undergoing Supraciliary Glaucoma Drainage Device Implantation.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
- Preliminary Short-Term Results of Supraciliary Ab-Interno MINIjectClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Effectiveness and biocompatibility of a novel Schlemm's canal microstent for glaucoma management.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Cancer Treatment Using Nanofibers: A Review.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Clinical Results of the MINIject Implant for Suprachoroidal Drainage.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Novel Biomaterials in Glaucoma Treatment.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- In vivo evaluation of a nanotechnology-based microshunt for filtering glaucoma surgery.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- New Devices in Glaucoma.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Review
- Clinical and Optical Coherence Tomography Evidence of Aqueous Humor Flow from the Suprachoroidal Space to Conjunctival Lymphatics.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Surgical Augmentation of the Suprachoroidal Space: A Novel Material and Implant.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Review
- Medical Applications of Porous Biomaterials: Features of Porosity and Tissue-Specific Implications for Biocompatibility.Advanced healthcare materials · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA major challenge for any glaucoma implant is their ability to provide long-term intraocular pressure lowering efficacy. The formation of a low-permeability fibrous capsule around the device often leads to obstructed drainage channels, which may impair the drainage function of devices. These foreign body-related limitations point to the need to develop biologically inert biomaterials to improve performance in reaching long-term intraocular pressure reduction. The aim of this study was to evaluate in vivo (in rabbits) the ocular biocompatibility and tissue integration of a novel suprachoroidal microinvasive glaucoma implant, MINIject™ (iSTAR Medical, Wavre, Belgium).
resultsIn two rabbit studies, no biocompatibility issue was induced by the suprachoroidal, ab-externo implantation of the MINIject™ device. Clinical evaluation throughout the 6 post-operative months between the sham and test groups were similar, suggesting most reactions were related to the ab-externo surgical technique used for rabbits, rather than the implant material itself. Histological analysis of ocular tissues at post-operative months 1, 3 and 6 revealed that the implant was well-tolerated and induced only minimal fibroplasia and thus minimal encapsulation around the implant. The microporous structure of the device became rapidly colonized by cells, mostly by macrophages through cell migration, which do not, by their nature, impede the flow of aqueous humor through the device. Time-course analysis showed that once established, pore colonization was stable over time. No fibrosis nor dense connective tissue development were observed within any implant at any time point. The presence of pore colonization may be the process by which encapsulation around the implant is minimized, thus preserving the permeability of the surrounding tissues. No degradation nor structural changes of the implant occurred during the course of both studies.
conclusionsThe novel MINIject™ microinvasive glaucoma implant was well-tolerated in ocular tissues of rabbits, with observance of biointegration, and no biocompatibility issues. Minimal fibrous encapsulation and stable cellular pore colonization provided evidence of preserved drainage properties over time, suggesting that the implant may produce a long-term ability to enhance aqueous outflow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.