ArticleScientific reports2026
Case-matched comparison of combined phacoemulsification with ab-interno trabeculectomy via Kahook dual blade and trabectome in a Caucasian population.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the outcomes after combined phacoemulsification and ab-interno trabeculectomy via Kahook Dual Blade (KDB) and Trabectome, being represented in two groups of patients of Caucasian ethnicity with matched baseline criteria. We included 60 eyes of 49 participants being treated for cataract, of which 30 eyes underwent additional ab-interno trabeculectomy via KDB (Kahook group) and 30 eyes received additional Trabectome surgery (Trabectome group). For this comparative analysis, the Kahook group and Trabectome group were matched at a 1:1-ratio, based on the following criteria: preoperative IOP, maximum known preoperative IOP, preoperative medication score, cup/disc-ratio, follow-up time, best-corrected visual acuity and age. Successful surgery was defined by three scores: IOP at longest follow-up < 21 mmHg (Score A) or < 18 mmHg (Score B) without re-surgery and an IOP reduction > 20% or IOP ≤ 15 mmHg without re-surgery and an IOP reduction ≥ 40% (Score C). Furthermore, we compared postoperative IOP, as well as medication score, and side effects between both groups. Both surgical techniques led to a relative IOP reduction of 29% within their respective groups. Specifically, preoperative IOP decreased from 19.5 ± 5.0 mmHg to 13.8 ± 3.9 mmHg in the Kahook group, and from 19.8 ± 4.5 mmHg to 14.0 ± 3.9 mmHg in the Trabectome group during an average follow-up period of 23–24 months. There was no statistical significant difference noted. Both the KDB and Trabectome yielded similar success rates, according to Score A (67% vs. 70%), Score B (63% vs. 67%) and Score C (33% vs. 23%). There were no severe side effects notes in either group. In conclusion, the KDB and Trabectome showed similar IOP-lowering properties and safety profiles within our two matched groups of Caucasian patients.
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.