Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Contralateral eye comparison study in MICS & MIGS: Trabectome® vs. iStent inject®

  • Glaucoma
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the safety and efficacy profile after combined micro-incision cataract surgery (MICS) and micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) with the ab interno trabeculectomy (Trabectome®) in one eye versus two iStent® inject devices in the contralateral eye in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) and cataract.

Methods

This retrospective, intraindividual eye comparison study included 27 patients (54 eyes) who were treated with combined MICS and ab interno trabeculectomy (group I, Trabectome®) in one eye and two iStent® inject devices (group II, GTS 400) in the fellow eye. Primary outcome measures included intraocular pressure (IOP) and glaucoma medication after 6 weeks, 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were number of postoperative interventions, complications, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA).

Results

Mean preoperative IOP decreased from 22.3 ± 3.7 mmHg in group I and 21.3 ± 4.1 mmHg in group II to 15.6 ± 3.6 mmHg for Trabectome (p < 0.001) and 14.0 ± 2.3 mmHg for iStent inject (p < 0.001) at 12 months after surgery without a significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). No vision-threatening complications such as choroidal effusion, choroidal hemorrhage, or infection occurred. In each group trabeculectomy had to be performed in two eyes due to insufficient IOP lowering effect.

Conclusions

Ab interno trabeculectomy and iStent® inject were both effective in lowering IOP with a favourable and comparable safety profile in an intraindividual comparative study over a 12-months follow-up in OAG. However, longer follow-up of these patients will be necessary to determine long-term outcomes and to evaluate significant differences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya’ale D, Kocur I, Pararajasegaram R, Pokharel GP, Mariotti SP (2004) Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull World Health Organ 82(11):844–851

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Tezel G, Kass MA, Kolker AE, Wax MB (1996) Comparative optic disc analysis in normal pressure glaucoma, primary open-angle glaucoma, and ocular hypertension. Ophthalmology 103(12):2105–2113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cvenkel B, Kontestabile AS (2011) Correlation between nerve fibre layer thickness measured with spectral domain OCT and visual field in patients with different stages of glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249(4):575–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Saheb H, Ahmed I (2012) Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery: current perspectives and future directions. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 23(2):96–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Le K, Saheb H (2014) iStent trabecular micro-bypass stent for open-angle glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol 8:1937–1945

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Fea AM, Consolandi G, Zola M, Pignata G, Cannizzo P, Lavia C, Rolle T, Grignolo FM (2015) Micro-bypass implantation for primary open-angle glaucoma combined with phacoemulsification: 4-year follow-Up. J Ophthalmol 2015:795357. doi:10.1155/2015/795357

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Malvankar-Mehta MS, Iordanous Y, Chen YN, Wang WW, Patel SS, Costella J, Hutnik CM (2015) IStent with phacoemulsification versus phacoemulsification alone for patients with glaucoma and cataract: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 10(7):e0131770. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131770, eCollection 2015

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Samuelson TW, Katz LJ, Wells JM, Duh Y-J, Giamporcaro JE, for the US iStent Study Group (2011) Randomized evaluation of the trabecular micro-bypass stent with phacoemulsification in patients with glaucoma and cataract. Ophthalmology 118(3):459–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ahmed II, Katz LJ, Chang DF, Donnenfeld ED, Solomon KD, Voskanyan L, Samuelson TW (2014) Prospective evaluation of microinvasive glaucoma surgery with trabecular microbypass stents and prostaglandin in open-angle glaucoma. J Cataract Refract Surg 40(8):1295–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ting JL, Damji KF, Stiles MC (2012) Ab interno trabeculectomy: outcomes in exfoliation versus primary open-angle glaucoma. J Cataract Refract Surg 38(2):315–323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jordan JF, Wecker T, van Oterendorp C, Anton A, Reinhard T, Boehringer D, Neuburger M (2013) Trabectome surgery for primary and secondary open angle glaucomas. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 251(12):2753–2760

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Bussel II, Kaplowitz K, Schuman JS, Loewen NA, Trabectome Study Group (2015) Outcomes of ab interno trabeculectomy with the trabectome by degree of angle opening. Br J Ophthalmol 99(7):914–919

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Voskanyan L, García-Feijoó J, Belda JI, Fea A, Jünemann A, Baudouin C, Synergy Study Group (2014) Prospective, unmasked evaluation of the iStent® inject system for open-angle glaucoma: synergy trial. Adv Ther 31(2):189–201

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Fea AM, Belda JI, Rękas M, Jünemann A, Chang L, Pablo L, Voskanyan L, Katz LJ (2014) Prospective unmasked randomized evaluation of the iStent inject(®) versus two ocular hypotensive agents in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol 8:875–882

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Klamann MK, Gonnermann J, Pahlitzsch M, Maier AK, Joussen AM, Torun N, Bertelmann E (2015) iStent inject in phakic open angle glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 253(6):941–947

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Klamann MK, Gonnermann J, Maier AK, Ruokonen PC, Torun N, Joussen AM, Bertelmann E (2013) Combined clear cornea phacoemulsification in the treatment of pseudoexfoliative glaucoma associated with cataract: significance of trabecular aspiration and ab interno trabeculectomy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 251(9):2195–2199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Al Habash A, Aljasim LA, Owaidhah O, Edward DP (2015) A review of the efficacy of mitomycin C in glaucoma filtration surgery. Clin Ophthalmol 9:1945–51. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S80111, eCollection 2015

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Arriola-Villalobos P, Martínez-de-la-Casa JM, Díaz-Valle D, García-Vidal SE, Fernández-Pérez C, García-Sánchez J, García-Feijoó J (2013) Mid-term evaluation of the new Glaukos iStent with phacoemulsification in coexistent open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and cataract. Br J Ophthalmol 97(10):1250–1255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mansberger SL, Gordon MO, Jampel H, Bhorade A, Brandt JD, Wilson B, Kass MA, Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (2012) Reduction in intraocular pressure after cataract extraction: the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Ophthalmology 119(9):1826–1831

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Yang HS, Lee J, Choi S (2013) Ocular biometric parameters associated with intraocular pressure reduction after cataract surgery in normal eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 156(1):89–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shingleton BJ, Pasternack JJ, Hung JW, O’Donoghue MW (2006) Three and five year changes in intraocular pressures after clear corneal phacoemulsification in open angle glaucoma patients, glaucoma suspects, and normal patients. J Glaucoma 15(6):494–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaplowitz K, Schuman JS, Loewen NA (2014) Techniques and outcomes of minimally invasive trabecular ablation and bypass surgery. Br J Ophthalmol 98(5):579–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany

    Johannes Gonnermann, Eckart Bertelmann, Milena Pahlitzsch, Anna-Karina B. Maier-Wenzel, Necip Torun & Matthias K. J. Klamann

Authors
  1. Johannes Gonnermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eckart Bertelmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Milena Pahlitzsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anna-Karina B. Maier-Wenzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Necip Torun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthias K. J. Klamann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Gonnermann.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Conflict of Interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gonnermann, J., Bertelmann, E., Pahlitzsch, M. et al. Contralateral eye comparison study in MICS & MIGS: Trabectome® vs. iStent inject®. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 255, 359–365 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-016-3514-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-016-3514-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation