The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery: current perspectives and future directions
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is an increasing interest and availability of micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) procedures. It is important that this increase is supported by sound, peer-reviewed evidence. This article will define MIGS, review relevant publications in the period of annual review and discuss future directions. RECENT FINDINGS: The results of the pivotal trial comparing a trabecular micro-bypass stent (iStent, Glaukos Corporation, Laguna Hills, CA, USA) combined with phacoemulsification to phacoemulsification alone showed a significantly higher percentage of patients with unmedicated intraocular pressure (IOP) ≤ 21 mmHg, and a comparable safety profile. Initial results are published regarding a second-generation micro-bypass stent (iStent inject, Glaukos Corporation, Laguna Hills, CA, USA), a canalicular scaffold (Hydrus, Ivantis Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) and an ab interno suprachoroidal microstent (CyPass, Transcend Medical, Menlo Park, CA, USA), showing a decrease in mean postoperative IOP. Phaco-Trabectome (Ab interno trabeculectomy Trabectome, NeoMedix Inc., Tustin, CA, USA) was compared to phacotrabeculectomy and showed less IOP reduction, less postoperative complications, and a similar success rate. Similar success rates were found with the comparison of excimer laser trabeculostomy (ELT, AIDA, Glautec AG, Nurnberg, Germany) and selective laser trabeculoplasty. A number of publications review the importance of the location of implantable devices, intraoperative gonioscopy, cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life studies, and randomized clinical trials. SUMMARY: MIGS procedures offer reduction in IOP, decrease in dependence on glaucoma medications and an excellent safety profile. Their role within our glaucoma treatment algorithm continues to be clarified and differs from the role of more invasive glaucoma surgeries such as trabeculectomy or glaucoma drainage devices.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Preferred Practice Pattern®
Gedde, S. J., Vinod, K., Wright, M. M., Muir, K. W., Lind, J. T., Chen, P. P., Li, T., & Mansberger, S. L. (2021) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.10.022 · Cited by 474
Lavia, C., Dallorto, L., Maule, M., Ceccarelli, M., & Fea, A. M. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183142 · Cited by 455
Current management of glaucoma
Lusthaus, J., & Goldberg, I. (2019) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/mja2.50020 · Cited by 354
Treatment Outcomes in the Primary Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study after 1 Year of Follow-up
Gedde, S. J., Feuer, W. J., Shi, W., Lim, K. S., Barton, K., Goyal, S., Ahmed, I. I. K., Brandt, J., Gedde, S., Banitt, M., et al. (2018) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.02.003 · Cited by 322
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Saheb, H., & Ahmed, I. I. K.
- Venue
- Current Opinion in Ophthalmology
- Published
- 2012-03
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 96-104
- ISSN
- 1040-8738 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1977940077
- Cited by
- 633
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery: current perspectives and future directions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/icu.0b013e32834ff1e7
- The paper
- Saheb, H., & Ahmed, I. I. K. (2012). Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery: current perspectives and future directions. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1097/icu.0b013e32834ff1e7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.