Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39429442›Full record

Trial reportClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing STREAMLINE Canaloplasty to Trabecular Micro-Bypass Stent Implantation in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma.

Damien F Goldberg, Claudio Orlich, Brian E Flowers, Inder P Singh, Sydney Tyson, Leonard K Seibold, Mohammed K ElMallah, Elysia M Ison, Med Harbin, Heather Reynolds and 1 more

Abstract readCase ReportsClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Minimally invasive trabecular meshwork surgery for open-angle glaucoma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Damien F GoldbergWolstan & Goldberg Eye Associates, Torrance, CA, USA.
Claudio OrlichClinica 20/20, San Jose, Costa Rica.
Brian E FlowersOphthalmology Associates, Fort Worth, TX, USA.
Inder P SinghThe Eye Centers of Racine & Kenosha, Racine, WI, USA.
Sydney TysonEye Associates & SurgiCenter of Vineland, Vineland, NJ, USA.
Leonard K SeiboldDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado Eye Center, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Mohammed K ElMallahOcala Eye, Ocala, FL, USA.
Elysia M IsonNew World Medical, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, USA.
Med HarbinNew World Medical, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-2047-0333
Heather ReynoldsNew World Medical, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, USA.
Malik Y KahookDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To report interim results of the VENICE study, a multi-center, randomized, controlled trial (RCT) comparing STREAMLINE Surgical System (STREAMLINE) canaloplasty with iStent inject W (iStent W) implantation in patients with mild-to-moderate primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) undergoing phacoemulsification. Patients and Methods: Safety and efficacy analyses involving the first 72 randomized eyes are included in this report. Following pre- (Screening) and post-medication washout (Eligibility) visits, one eye per subject was randomized 1:1 to STREAMLINE or iStent W after undergoing uncomplicated phacoemulsification. Subjects were evaluated postoperatively at Day 1, Week 1, Month 1, 3, and 6. Intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements, number of IOP-lowering medications, and adverse events (AEs) were assessed at each follow-up visit. Results: Seventy-two eyes were randomized; 35 underwent STREAMLINE canaloplasty and 37 were implanted with the iStent W. Seventy eyes completed their 6-month follow-up. Both the mean morning post-washout Baseline IOP between STREAMLINE 24.86±3.05 mmHg and iStent W 25.16±3.41 mmHg and the mean IOP at 6 months between STREAMLINE eyes 16.52±3.63 mmHg and iStent W eyes 16.08±3.19 mmHg were not statistically significantly different (p=0.691 and 0.596, respectively). At 6 months, more eyes were on zero glaucoma medications in the STREAMLINE group (81.8%) compared to the iStent W group (78.4%). In medication-free eyes, the mean IOP was reduced from 24.80±2.79 mmHg to 16.00±3.40 mmHg and 24.60±3.18 mmHg to 15.80±2.21 mmHg in the STREAMLINE and iStent W groups, respectively (p=0.752). Both groups showed reduction in IOP-lowering medications at every visit, compared to pre-washout (Screening), with STREAMLINE resulting in numerically fewer medications 0.20±0.48 compared to iStent W 0.40±0.79 at 6 months (P=0.384). AEs were mild and self-limited. Conclusion: To our knowledge, the VENICE trial is the first RCT involving canaloplasty. These interim findings demonstrated comparable IOP and medication reduction between STREAMLINE canaloplasty and iStent W implantation, when combined with phacoemulsification.

Indexed as

canaloplastyiStent inject Wmicroinvasive glaucoma surgeryMIGSPOAGprimary open-angle glaucomaSTREAMLINE

Identifiers

PMID39429442
PMCPMC11491083

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.