ArticleBMC ophthalmology2021
Comparative outcome analysis of bleb needling of fibrotic blebs in the clinic versus the operating room: a retrospective case series.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally Invasive Bleb Surgery for Glaucoma: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2024Pooled it
- High dose versus low dose Mitomycin-C assisted bleb needling in failing trabeculectomy blebs: a prospective comparative study.International ophthalmology · 2026Trial
- Three-year outcomes of surgical bleb revision with mitomycin C for early scarring bleb after trabeculectomy.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare 6 month outcomes of bleb needling performed in the clinic vs. the operating room (OR) in adult glaucoma patients with failed bleb.
methodsA retrospective case series of 47 eyes from 41 glaucoma patients who received needling with mitomycin C (MMC) of scarred bleb from prior bleb-forming procedures in clinic (32 eyes) vs. the OR (15 eyes), including trabeculectomy (14 eyes), ExPress shunt (16 eyes), and ab-interno XEN gel stent (17 eyes). The primary outcome was needling success, defined as IOP ≤ 18 mmHg on 0 glaucoma medications without requiring an additional IOP lowering procedure within 6 months after needling.
resultsAt 6 months, bleb needling success rate was similar when performed in the clinic vs. in the OR (28% vs. 20%, P = 0.54). Success rate was not statistically different in patients with prior trabeculectomy, ExPress shunt, and XEN gel stent (29% vs. 38% vs. 12%, P = 0.26). When comparing clinic vs. the OR needling procedures at 6 months, there was no difference in mean IOP (14.2 vs. 14.9 mmHg, P = 0.73), mean glaucoma medications (1.4 vs. 1.7, P = 0.69), additional IOP-lowering procedure rate (16% vs. 27%, P = 0.37), or complication rate (0% vs. 7%, P = 0.32).
conclusionBleb needling with MMC in clinic may be a safe and effective way to revise failed bleb after trabeculectomy, ExPress shunt, and XEN gel stent procedures when compared to needling in the OR.
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.