Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41832303›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2026

Safety and Feasibility of the Exchange Procedure for the Travoprost Intracameral Implant for Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension.

John P Berdahl, Robert P Lehmann, Jason J Jones, Steven R Sarkisian, David Applegate, L Jay Katz, Angela C Kothe, Tomas Navratil

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04615403 (Prospective, Non-Randomized, Open-Label, Multi-Center, Single Arm Study of Exchange of Travoprost Intraocular Implant), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

NCT04615403 phase2completednot on this map

Prospective, Non-Randomized, Open-Label, Multi-Center, Single Arm Study of Exchange of Travoprost Intraocular Implant

TypeinterventionalSponsorGlaukos CorporationRan2020 to 2022Enrolled33ConditionsOpen Angle GlaucomaArmsTravoprost
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

John P BerdahlVance Thompson Vision, 3101 West 57th Street, Sioux Falls, SD, 57108, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5468-7405
Robert P LehmannLehmann Eye Center, 5300 North St, Nacogdoches, TX, 75965, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6605-8307
Jason J JonesJones Eye Clinic and Surgery Center, 4405 Hamilton Boulevard, Sioux City, IA, 51104, USA.
Steven R SarkisianOklahoma Eye Surgeons, PLLC, 5600 N Portland Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK, 73112, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7633-2720
David ApplegateGlaukos Corporation, One Glaukos Way, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656, USA.
L Jay KatzGlaukos Corporation, One Glaukos Way, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656, USA.
Angela C KotheGlaukos Corporation, One Glaukos Way, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-7971-5292
Tomas NavratilGlaukos Corporation, One Glaukos Way, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656, USA. tnavratil@glaukos.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-3577-3096

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe conducted a prospective, single-arm, open-label study to evaluate the feasibility and safety of an exchange procedure for the travoprost intracameral implant.

methodsAdult subjects with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who had previously received a travoprost intracameral implant were enrolled at 12 sites in the United States and one in the Philippines. Subjects were administered a new travoprost intracameral implant followed by removal of the previous implant ("exchange" procedure). The primary outcome measures were treatment-emergent adverse events, and other ocular safety parameters (i.e., endothelial cell density, visual acuity, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, and visual fields).

resultsThirty-three subjects who had received a travoprost intracameral implant for a mean duration of 4.2 years prior were recruited. All subjects were successfully implanted with a new implant, and the previous implant was successfully removed. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events, or severe treatment-related adverse events in the eye that underwent the exchange procedure. No subject required a subsequent explantation.

conclusionsTravoprost intracameral implant demonstrated an acceptable safety profile both during and after the exchange procedure, supporting its re-administration. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT04615403.

Indexed as

Glaucoma micro-eluting drug systemIntracameralIntraocular pressureOcular hypertensionOpen-angle glaucomaProcedural pharmaceuticalTravoprost intracameral implant

Identifiers

PMID41832303
PMCPMC13046897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.