ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Multicentre study comparing ab-interno canaloplasty and trabecular micro-bypass stent in primary open-angle glaucoma.
Article in Eye (London, England), 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare canaloplasty and trabecular micro-bypass surgery outcomes in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).
methodsAmbispective study using data from the International Glaucoma Surgery Registry (IGSR) to evaluate mild-to-moderate POAG patients who underwent iTrack ab-interno canaloplasty (Nova Eye Medical, USA) (prospective cohort) or iStent trabecular micro-bypass implantation (Glaukos, USA) (retrospective cohort), with or without concomitant phacoemulsification, and ≥12 months of follow-up. Primary outcomes were intraocular pressure (IOP), medication usage, and surgical success as defined by the American Academy of Ophthalmology (2024).
resultsThe study included 339 eyes (iStent: n = 115; iTrack: n = 224) of which ≥94% underwent concomitant phacoemulsification (iStent: n = 109, iTrack: n = 210). There were nonsignificant differences in baseline IOP (p = 0.417) and medications (p = 0.741) between groups. At last follow-up, mean IOP (mmHg) and medication usage decreased from 17.3 ± 4.2 and 2.0 ± 1.1 at baseline to 14.2 ± 3.5 and 1.3 ± 1.1 in the iStent group (p < 0.001; mean follow-up: 27.2 ± 14.5 months), and from 16.9 ± 5.0 and 2.0 ± 1.1 at baseline to 14.3 ± 3.4 and 1.1 ± 1.3 in the iTrack group (p < 0.001; mean follow-up: 20.3 ± 7.7 months). Both groups showed no significant differences in reduction of IOP (p = 0.422) and medications (p = 0.211). More eyes were medication-free in the iTrack group (42% vs 29%; p = 0.029). Success was achieved in 61% of eyes in both groups (p = 1.000). Postoperatively, both groups demonstrated infrequent and self-limited complications, no sight-threatening events, and low reoperation rates.
conclusionIn POAG, iTrack canaloplasty and iStent implantation showed no statistically significant differences in effectiveness outcomes. Both procedures had favourable safety profiles with limited additional glaucoma surgeries. More canaloplasty eyes were medication-free compared to stent eyes.
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.