ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2022
Comparison of minimally invasive glaucoma surgery with trabecular micro-bypass stent and microhook
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the effectiveness between propensity score-matched trabecular micro-bypass stent versus ab interno trabeculotomy.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Article
- Outcomes and Complications of Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgeries (MIGS) in Primary Angle Closure and Primary Angle Closure Glaucoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- Comparison of surgical outcomes between iStent inject W implantation and microhook ab interno trabeculotomy in combination with phacoemulsification in primary open-angle glaucoma patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the effectuality and safety of cataract surgery combined with either
methodsThis study enrolled subjects with mild-to-moderate open angle glaucoma with visually significant cataract who used two or more ophthalmic antiglaucoma agents between 60 and 90y of age. Patients underwent cataract surgery cooperated with either implantation of an iStent (iStent-phaco) or excisional goniotomy with the µLOT (µLOT-phaco). Patients underwent µLOT-phaco in the eye with lower the mean deviation, according to the Humphrey field analyzer, while iStent-phaco was carried out on the other eye. Intraocular pressure (IOP) pre- and post-surgery, alterations in anterior chamber flare (ACF), and corneal endothelial cell density (ECD) were estimated.
resultsTwenty subjects were enrolled (mean age: 73.6±7.3y). The mean medicated preoperative IOP was 16.7 mm Hg in the µLOT and 16.2 mm Hg in the iStent eyes. The mean final IOP at 12mo was 13.6 mm Hg in the µLOT eyes and 13.6 mm Hg in the iStent eyes, representing a 17.8% and 17.2% reduction, respectively. The preoperative ACF in the µLOT eyes was 9.5 pc/ms and it returned to normal in 30d postoperatively, with a value of 11.4 pc/ms. In the iStent eyes, ACF was 9.6 pc/ms preoperatively and it returned to normal by 7d postoperatively (11.2 pc/ms at day 7), demonstrating that postoperative inflammation was less in the iStent eyes. The corneal ECD in both groups was not significantly decreased.
conclusionIn this study, iStent and µLOT are both effective through 12mo of follow-up. Safety is more favorable in the iStent eyes, based on early anterior chamber inflammation.
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.