Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41222659›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026

Dominic Moogon Choo, Tyler Avery Durham, Hongyi Zhang, Krishna Chakravarthi Hariprasad, Shivani Shashi Kamat

Abstract readComparative StudyEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Dominic Moogon Choo *Department of Ophthalmology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-7224-3636
Tyler Avery Durham *Department of Ophthalmology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3707-6941
Hongyi ZhangDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-0862-0992
Krishna Chakravarthi HariprasadCollege of Natural Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Shivani Shashi KamatDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA. shivani.kamat@utsouthwestern.edu.

Funding

Research to Prevent Blindness Challenge Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo report real-world intraoperative and early postoperative (< 3 months) complications of iStent surgery and analyze notable examples. PATIENTS AND

methodsThe Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database was queried for "iStent" reports from January 2014 to March 2024. Late postoperative events, reports containing inadequate detail, and those from indirect sources (e.g., published literature, social media posts) were excluded. Adverse events were analyzed per device generation.

resultsA total of 808 reports were included, revealing 437, 377, 465, and 48 adverse events across the different iStent generations. The most common intraoperative events were malposition for iStent Trabecular Micro-Bypass, Inject, and Infinite (35%, 40%, 35%) and trocar damage for Inject W (34%). Surgeons and the manufacturer most frequently cited trocar bias as the cause of trocar damage. When the timing of trocar damage was specified, 66.7% occurred during deployment of the final stent of the series. Notably, device-derived foreign body contamination was exclusive to Inject W (11). The most common early postoperative event for all four generations was elevated intraocular pressure (IOP), occurring in 32%, 38%, 15%, and 15% of cases respectively. For the Infinite, hyphema was observed at a comparable proportion (15%).

conclusionPost-market data highlight distinct complication profiles across iStent generations, with malposition and elevated IOP as leading reported issues. Generation-specific trends, such as trocar damage in Inject W and Infinite, underscore the need for tailored surgical vigilance and further study.

Indexed as

GlaucomaIntraocular PressureIntraoperative ComplicationsPostoperative ComplicationsStentsDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesDevice malfunctionMicro-Invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS)Post-market surveillanceSurgical techniqueTrocar damage

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.