ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
A Novel, Low-Cost Alternative to Traditional Glaucoma Surgeries.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the real-world efficacy of a novel, low-cost glaucoma drainage device in canine and human patients. Methods: A retrospective case series of 17 eyes in 14 canines and one eye of a human patient who each underwent novel drainage device implantation is described. This device was constructed by insertion and advancement of a 24-gauge cannula (canine) or 23-gauge cannula (human) perpendicularly through five adjacent tubes of a 25-mm Yeates surgical drain. Results: Of the canine patients, the average follow-up period was 362 days (range, 27-863). The mean preoperative intraocular pressure (IOP) was 50.9 ± 17.9 mm Hg. Following tube surgery, IOP was maintained at <20 mm Hg in 81.3%, 100%, 100%, 85.7%, 100%, and 75.0% of eyes at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, respectively. Bleb needling and/or revisions were required in five eyes. Enucleations and/or device explantations were performed in five eyes at mean day 140. In the human case, the device was implanted in the right eye of a 64-year-old male with refractory raised IOP (55 mm Hg) despite maximum medical therapy. IOP was well controlled until day 818, when eventual tissue breakdown necessitated device removal. Conclusions: This design represents a novel, low-cost, effective alternative to traditional glaucoma tube devices. Translational Relevance: This device has great potential for use in regions where the needs for glaucoma drainage devices and surgical alternatives to trabeculectomy have not been met. Further development may include tube crimping or fenestration and preoperative loading of slow-release antibiotics and/or anti-metabolite medications within the non-draining lumens.
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.