ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
PRESERFLO Microshunt™ versus Non-Penetrating Deep Sclerectomy for Glaucoma Management, One-Year Results.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. 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.
- Efficacy of Intraoperative 9-0 Nylon Thread Insertion for Preventing Hypotony-Related Complications Following PreserFlo MicroShunt Implantation in Japanese Patients: A Comparative Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the short-term efficacy and safety of the PRESERFLO™ MicroShunt (PF) versus Non-Penetrating Deep Sclerectomy (NPDS) with Esnoper Methods: Retrospective comparative cohort study at a tertiary hospital including 79 eyes from 79 patients submitted to surgery (32 PF implantation, Group 1 and 47 NPDS, Group 2) between January 2022 and August 2023, with one year follow-up. Outcome measures included intraocular pressure (IOP), complications, surgical duration, postoperative major and minor interventions. Surgical failure was defined as IOP>21 mmHg or <20% reduction from baseline, IOP<5 mmHg, major postoperative intervention, or loss of light perception. Conversely, success was defined as the absence of these failure criteria: complete success without glaucoma medications, and qualified success with. Results: Baseline characteristics, including age, sex, IOP, number of IOP-lowering medications, and visual field defects, were comparable between groups (p>0.05). After one year, IOP decreased significantly in both groups (PF: 20.13±6.20 to 15.00±3.15 mmHg; NPDS: 19.57±5.73 to 13.30±3.59 mmHg, both p<0.001). Complete success rates were 28.1% for PF and 40.4% for NPDS (p=0.189), while surgical failure was significantly higher in the PF group (65.6% vs 38.3%, p=0.015). Major reinterventions were more frequent with PF (10 vs 3, p=0.005), partly due to encapsulated blebs, while NPDS required more minor interventions (2 vs 17, p=0.002). Complication rates were similar (31.3% vs 14.9%, p=0.073), but surgical duration was shorter in the PF group (60.03±17.95 min vs 69.91±15.23 min, p=0.008). Conclusion: PF and NPDS share comparable safety profiles. Although PF surgery is faster, it is associated with a higher rate of major postoperative interventions and failure. NPDS, while requiring more minor interventions, such as goniopuncture and needling, rarely demands major re-interventions. NPDS is known for its meticulous and technically challenging technique, but once mastered, it can result in fewer invasive re-interventions and improved efficacy.
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.