ArticleTherapeutic advances in ophthalmology
Clinical outcomes of PRESERFLO
Article in Therapeutic advances in ophthalmology. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The PRESERFLO Objectives: To compare the outcomes of PRESERFLO Microshunt procedure using either mitomycin C (MMC) alone versus MMC augmented with bevacizumab in patients with open angle glaucoma to a follow-up time of 6 months. Design: Retrospective observational single-center single-surgeon study. Methods: Patients' records of patients who consecutively underwent PRESERFLO Microshunt at Queen Victoria Hospital, United Kingdom, were examined. From December 2018 to January 2020, eligible patients underwent PRESERFLO Microshunt implantation with MMC alone (0.2-0.4 mg/ml), whereas from February 2020 to January 2022, patients underwent PRESERFLO Microshunt implantation with MMC (0.2-0.4 mg/ml) and adjuvant intracameral 0.1 ml of bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 ml). Efficacy outcomes were analyzed, including changes in intraocular pressure (IOP) and changes in medication use. Postoperative complications and postoperative interventions were also reviewed. Results: A total of 75 eyes were included in the analysis, 38 eyes received MMC alone, whereas 37 eyes received MMC combined with bevacizumab. There were no statistically significant differences in the demographic or clinical profile of patients between treatment groups.Both strategies were effective in terms of IOP lowering (baseline vs 6 months postoperatively: 20.0 (6.8) mmHg vs 12.8 (3.7) mmHg in the MMC group; 23.6 (6.9) mmHg vs 11.9 (4.2) mmHg in the MMC+ bevacizumab group; Conclusions: Adjuvant use of bevacizumab in MMC-augmented PRESERFLO Microshunt procedure is at least as effective as MMC alone but helps reduce rates of postoperative interventions.
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.