ArticleInternational ophthalmology2023
Standard anterior peritomy versus a small posterior incision for the implantation of the PRESERFLO microshunt.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Management practices and surgical techniques for ab externo less invasive glaucoma surgery: a literature review and expert recommendations.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare two approaches for the implantation of the PRESERFLO microshunt: an anterior approach (A) with a 6-8-mm peritomy and a posterior approach (P) with a 3-mm incision.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 126 patients who received a PRESERFLO microshunt. We compared intraocular pressure (IOP), surgical time, medication count, and postoperative complications over nine months.
resultsThe baseline IOP was similar in A (21.8 ± 8.5 mm Hg) and P (23.9 ± 8.1 mm Hg) (p = 0.08). Surgical duration was significantly shorter in P (10 ± 0.4 min) than in A (26 ± 0.8 min) (p < 0.001). Postoperative IOP levels were comparable in A (10.8 ± 5.9 mm Hg) and P (10.6 ± 4.5 mm Hg) at 30 days (p = 0.62) and throughout the study (all intra-group p-values > 0.08). The preoperative medication count was 3.2 ± 1.3 drops in A and 3.3 ± 1.0 drops in P (p = 0.4). Postoperative values were 0.2 ± 0.6 in A and 0.3 ± 0.7 in P at nine months. There were no significant differences in complications and surgical revisions between groups (p-values > 0.05).
conclusionBoth techniques achieved satisfactory IOP and medication count reductions and had similar safety profiles, but the posterior incision technique was 2.6 times faster than the anterior incision technique.
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.