Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 Aug 29;12(8):e0183142.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183142. eCollection 2017.

Minimally-invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS) for open angle glaucoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Carlo Lavia  1 , Laura Dallorto  1 , Milena Maule  2 , Manuela Ceccarelli  3 , Antonio Maria Fea  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Minimally-invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS) for open angle glaucoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Carlo Lavia et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: MIGS have been developed as a surgical alternative for glaucomatous patients.

Purpose: To analyze the change in intraocular pressure (IOP) and glaucoma medications using different MIGS devices (Trabectome, iStent, Excimer Laser Trabeculotomy (ELT), iStent Supra, CyPass, XEN, Hydrus, Fugo Blade, Ab interno canaloplasty, Goniscopy-assisted transluminal trabeculotomy) as a solo procedure or in association with phacoemulsification.

Methods: Randomized control trials (RCT) and non-RCT (non randomized comparative studies, NRS, and before-after studies) were included. Studies with at least one year of follow-up in patients affected by primary open angle glaucoma, pseudoexfoliative glaucoma or pigmentary glaucoma were considered. Risk of Bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias and the ROBINS-I tools. The main outcome was the effect of MIGS devices compared to medical therapy, cataract surgery, other glaucoma surgeries and other MIGS on both IOP and use of glaucoma medications 12 months after surgery. Outcomes measures were the mean difference in the change of IOP and glaucoma medication compared to baseline at one and two years and all ocular adverse events. The current meta-analysis is registered on PROSPERO (reference n° CRD42016037280).

Results: Over a total of 3,069 studies, nine RCT and 21 case series with a total of 2.928 eyes were included. Main concerns about risk of bias in RCTs were lack of blinding, allocation concealment and attrition bias while in non-RCTs they were represented by patients' selection, masking of participants and co-intervention management. Limited evidence was found based on both RCTs and non RCTs that compared MIGS surgery with medical therapy or other MIGS. In before-after series, MIGS surgery seemed effective in lowering both IOP and glaucoma drug use. MIGS showed a good safety profile: IOP spikes were the most frequent complications and no cases of infection or BCVA loss due to glaucoma were reported.

Conclusions: Although MIGS seem efficient in the reduction of the IOP and glaucoma medication and show good safety profile, this evidence is mainly derived from non-comparative studies and further, good quality RCTs are warranted.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram a = number of studies excluded for device respected the same order as the main boxes.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Forest plot for comparison in IOP change between study arms at 12-months (divided by device and procedure).
Values expressed in Weighed Mean Difference (WMD).
Fig 3
Fig 3. Forest plot for 12-months difference in change in number of glaucoma medications reduction (divided by device and procedure) values expressed in Weighed Mean Difference (WMD).
Fig 4
Fig 4. Forest plot for 12-months IOP reduction (divided by device and procedure).Values expressed in Weighed Mean Difference (WMD).
Fig 5
Fig 5. Forest plot for 12-months number of medication reduction (divided by device and procedure).
Values expressed in Weighed Mean Difference (WMD).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(3):262–267. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2005.081224 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. European Glaucoma Society. Terminology and guidelines for glaucoma 4th edition Savona, Italy: Editrice PubliComm, 2014.
    1. Newman-Casey PA, Robin AL, Blachley T, Farris K, Heisler M, Resnicow K et al. The Most Common Barriers to Glaucoma Medication Adherence: A Cross-Sectional Surv Ophthalmol. 2015;122(7):1308–1316. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schwartz GF, Quigley HA. Adherence and persistence with glaucoma therapy. Surv Ophthalmol. 2008;53 Suppl1:S57–68. - PubMed
    1. Schuman JS. Antiglaucoma medications: a review of safety and tolerability issues related to their use. Clin Ther. 2000;22(2):167–208. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2918(00)88478-7 - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms