ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2023
Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Two Different Trabecular MIGS Devices With and Without Ab Interno Canaloplasty in Patients with Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the Intraocular Pressure-Lowering Effect of Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS) iStent Inject W and Hydrus-The 12-Month Real-Life Data.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Minimally invasive glaucoma surgery: comparison of Hydrus microstent with iStentBMJ open ophthalmology · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study compared outcomes of the iStent inject trabecular micro-bypass system versus the Hydrus Microstent in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).
methodsForty subjects (80 eyes) with POAG were included in this single-center, retrospective, contralateral-eye analysis. All patients underwent phacoemulsification with either iStent inject or Hydrus implantation in one eye and the other device in the contralateral eye, with ≥ 3-month follow-up. In 58 eyes (27 iStent inject, 31 Hydrus) the surgery also included ab interno canaloplasty (ABiC). Twelve-month outcomes included intraocular pressure (IOP), medications, and adverse events. Subgroup analyses were completed for iStent inject versus Hydrus, and with versus without ABiC.
resultsAt 12 months versus baseline, mean IOP reduced from 16.8 ± 3.7 to 13.6 ± 2.9 (p = 0.003) in iStent inject eyes, and from 18.1 ± 4.5 to 14.9 ± 3.2 mmHg (p = 0.003) in Hydrus eyes (between-group IOP reduction p = 0.582). Mean number of glaucoma medications reduced from 1.23 ± 0.97 to 0.30 ± 0.76 (p < 0.001) in iStent inject eyes and from 1.20 ± 1.02 to 0.39 ± 0.72 (p = 0.001) in Hydrus eyes (between-group medication reduction p = 0.943). At 12 months, 82.6% of iStent inject eyes and 73.9% of Hydrus eyes were medication-free versus 20.0% preoperatively in both groups (p < 0.0001 both groups). There were no statistically significant IOP or medication differences between iStent inject and Hydrus pre- or postoperatively, both in the overall cohort and in the with/without ABiC subgroups. Outcomes also were similar between eyes with/without ABiC in the overall cohort and in the iStent inject/Hydrus subgroups. There were no adverse events in the iStent inject group; two eyes in the Hydrus group had device-related complications requiring five additional surgeries (one Hydrus repositioning, one Hydrus exchange, one Hydrus removal, two goniotomies).
conclusionIn this contralateral-eye comparison of iStent inject versus Hydrus, the groups had similar IOP and medication outcomes, regardless of stratification by ABiC completion. Eyes receiving Hydrus had more complications and subsequent surgeries.
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.