ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Retrospective Single-Center Outcomes After a First Bimatoprost Sustained-Release Implant.
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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the long-term efficacy of the bimatoprost sustained-release (SR) implant focusing on time to additional intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering intervention and changes in medication burden and IOP, with subgroup analyses by lens status and prior trabecular meshwork (TM) procedures. Patients and Methods: This retrospective study included patients who received a single bimatoprost SR implant between September 2020 and June 2022 at a single center. Data was obtained from electronic medical records. The primary outcomes were time to failure defined as addition of IOP-lowering medications, procedures, or surgery, changes in topical medication use, and IOP over time. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and linear mixed-effects models were used to assess overall outcomes and within subgroups. Results: The study included 223 eyes from 134 patients. At 6-, 12-, and 24-months post-implantation, 67.3%, 38.5%, and 20.5% of eyes, respectively, remained free of additional IOP-lowering treatment. The rates of survival were not statistically significant when stratified by lens status or history of TM procedures. The mean number of topical medications was 1.8 ± 1.3 at baseline and was significantly reduced beginning at 1 month and through 18 months (p < 0.001). There was not a significant IOP decrease post implantation. Subgroup analysis showed no significant differences in IOP and a borderline significant difference in medication use (p = 0.051) between phakic and pseudophakic eyes. Eyes with a history of TM procedures had higher IOP compared to those without prior intervention (p = 0.042), and medication use was not significantly different between groups. Conclusion: In this retrospective, single-center study the bimatoprost SR implant provided significant reduction in topical medication burden for 18 months. The implant provided six months of freedom from additional IOP lowering interventions in more than half of the eyes with an expected decline. A small group continued to be free from additional IOP lowering intervention for up to 24 months.
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.