ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2021
iStent versus iStent inject implantation combined with phacoemulsification in open angle glaucoma.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retrospective analysis of indications and outcomes of trabecular micro-bypass stent implantation in Indian eyes.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Twelve-Month Outcomes of iStent Infinite in Severe Open-Angle Glaucoma Compared with iStent Inject W in Mild-to-Moderate Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- One-Year Outcomes of Phacoemulsification Combined with Trabecular Micro-Bypass Stent Implantation and Goniosynechialysis in Primary Angle Closure Glaucoma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Multicentre study comparing ab-interno canaloplasty and trabecular micro-bypass stent in primary open-angle glaucoma.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Trabecular Meshwork-Based MIGS: Efficacy, Technique Variability, and Wound Healing-A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A Systematic and Narrative Review of Safety and Complications in Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS) Between 2014-2024.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Clinical outcomes of combined cataract surgery with iStent injectGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
- Visual Function After Schlemm's Canal-Based MIGS.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Manipulable preoperative factors affecting surgical outcomes of iStent inject W, particularly the type of antiglaucoma medications.PloS one · 2025Article
- From first generation to the next: evolution and research trends in iStent technology.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Two-Year Post-Market Surveillance of iStentClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Functional assessment of trabecular bypass created by iStent inject using aqueous angiography.BMJ case reports · 2024Article
- Consistency in Standalone Canaloplasty Outcomes Using the iTrack Microcatheter.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Comparative evaluation of iStent versus iStent inject W combined with phacoemulsification in open angle glaucoma.PloS one · 2024Article
- Comparison of the iStent InjectJournal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery: A Review of the Literature.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- [Minimally invasive glaucoma surgery-Comparison of angle based procedures].Die Ophthalmologie · 2023Review
- The PreserFlo MicroShunt in the Context of Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery: A Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Spotlight on Schlemm's Canal MicroStent Injection in Patients with Glaucoma.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Review
- Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery: Safety of Individual Devices.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the outcomes of iStent vs. iStent inject implantation combined with phacoemulsification.
methodsThis single center retrospective comparative case series included subjects with open angle glaucoma who underwent iStent or iStent inject implantation combined with phacoemulsification with ≥1 year follow-up. The main outcome measures were in-group and between-group changes in intraocular pressure (IOP) and medication number, proportion of eyes that achieved IOP ≤15 mmHg, and surgical success defined as 20% IOP reduction from baseline at 6/12 months. Univariate/multivariate regression analyses were done to identify predictors of surgical failure.
resultsOne hundred ninety-seven eyes of 148 patients were included (122 iStent, 75 iStent inject). Both groups achieved significant IOP and medication reduction at months 6/12 (P < 0.05). At month 6, IOP was significantly lower in iStent inject vs. iStent eyes (P = 0.003), but the difference was insignificant by month 12 (P = 0.172). Medication number was comparable in both groups at months 6/12 (P > 0.05). More iStent inject eyes achieved IOP ≤15 mmHg at month 6 (P = 0.003) and 12 (P = 0.047). Surgical success was comparable in both groups at months 6/12 (P > 0.05). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed similar cumulative rate of surgical failure at year-1 in both groups (P = 0.644). The multivariate model identified older age (P = 0.017) and lower baseline IOP (P = 0.002) as the strongest predictors of surgical failure.
conclusionCompared to iStent, iStent inject achieved lower IOP at month 6 and higher proportion of eyes achieved IOP ≤15 mmHg at month 6/12. However, surgical success was similar in both groups. Predictors of surgical failure were older age and lower baseline IOP rather than the stent type.
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.