ArticleJapanese journal of ophthalmology2026
Comparison of the effectiveness between propensity score-matched trabecular micro-bypass stent versus ab interno trabeculotomy.
Article in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 2026. 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.
- Should Schlemm Canal-Based MIGS Be Combined with Cataract Surgery in Patients Receiving Topical Glaucoma Therapy? A Cataract Surgeon-Oriented Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
Abstract
purposeTo assess the efficacy of trabecular micro-bypass stents (IS) versus ab interno trabeculotomy (LOT) performed alongside cataract surgery; and to ensure patient comparability across both surgical groups concerning age, intraocular pressure (IOP), medication score, and disease type. STUDY
designRetrospective cohort
methodsOverall, 194 eyes were assessed from 107 Japanese patients with open-angle glaucoma or exfoliation glaucoma who received IS plus cataract surgery at Saitama Red Cross Hospital between July 2017 and January 2022. Another 88 eyes were assessed from 58 patients who underwent combined LOT and cataract surgery at the same hospital between January 2018 and December 2019. Both cohorts were followed-up for ≥6 months. Propensity scoring facilitated between-group patient background matching. Overall, 62 eyes per group matched for preoperative characteristics were analyzed.
resultsSix-month postoperative IOP was 14.50 ± 2.26 and 14.08 ± 2.50 mmHg for IS and LOT, respectively, with medication scores of 1.50 ± 1.17 (IS) and 1.71 ± 1.60 (LOT), indicating no significant differences. The IOP reduction rate was 19.03 ± 13.34% (IS) and 18.94 ± 23.26% (LOT), showing no significant difference. Both groups exhibited similar medication score reductions (-1.11 ± 1.04 [IS], and -0.92 ± 1.47 [LOT]). Preoperative IOP significantly correlated with IOP reduction rate in both procedures. LOT patients experienced more hyphema postoperatively, versus IS patients.
conclusionIn eyes with relatively well-controlled preoperative IOP-where either IS or LOT could be reasonably selected-either procedure offers similar surgical outcomes, with comparable postoperative performance and complication rates, except for postoperative hyphema.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41533258What 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.