ArticleEye (London, England)2025
Cataract surgery with and without trabecular micro-bypass stent in primary angle-closure glaucoma: a multi-centre cohort study.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- One-Year Outcomes of Phacoemulsification Combined with Trabecular Micro-Bypass Stent Implantation and Goniosynechialysis in Primary Angle Closure Glaucoma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Refractive error after phacoemulsification combined with intraocular lens implantation in primary angle-closure glaucoma: a multifactorial analysis of biometric parameters and surgical strategies.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the effectiveness and safety of phacoemulsification with iStents (phaco-iStent) vs. phacoemulsification alone (phaco-alone) in primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG).
methodsRetrospective, cohort, multi-centre study. The primary outcome was surgical success during follow-up, defining complete success(CS) as intraocular pressure(IOP) 6-18 mmHg without reoperations and ≥20% IOP reduction without medications, and qualified success(QS) as IOP 6-18 mmHg without reoperations and either ≥1medication reduction or ≥20% IOP reduction on the same medications. Secondary outcome measures were IOP reduction, number of glaucoma medications (nmeds), visual acuity (VA) and complications. Factors for failure were explored using Cox regression. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
resultsOne hundred and eighty-five eyes included, 90 phaco-alone and 95 phaco-iStent (mean age 77.7 ± 9.0 years, mean follow-up 24.6 ± 9.2 months). Whereas no differences were found in IOP reduction between groups, nmeds reduction was higher in phaco-iStent at month 1 (p = 0.006), 6 (p = 0.002), 12 (p = 0.005) and 24 (p = 0.02). CS was achieved in 13.8% phaco-iStent and 10.1% phaco-alone (p = 0.46), while QS was achieved in 54.3% and 62.0%, respectively (p = 0.30), with no differences in the survival function distributions. Cystoid macular oedema and anterior uveitis were reported in six phaco-iStent. There were no long-term sight-threatening complications or differences in postoperative VA change between groups.
conclusionAdding iStent to phacoemulsification may provide a modest reduction in glaucoma medications with similar IOP control than phacoemulsification alone in selected PACG patients. While generally safe, the risks of postoperative macular oedema and uveitis should be weighed against the benefit of reducing medication. Prospective, cost-effectiveness studies of iStent in PACG are warranted.
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.