Journal of Current Glaucoma Practice

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2020 ) > List of Articles

EDITORIAL

Ethics of Glaucoma Widgets

Tanuj Dada, Priyanka Ramesh, Anin Sethi, Shibal Bhartiya

Citation Information : Dada T, Ramesh P, Sethi A, Bhartiya S. Ethics of Glaucoma Widgets. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2020; 14 (3):77-80.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1288

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-12-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract


PDF Share
  1. Weinreb RN, Aung T, Medeiros FA. The pathophysiology and treatment of glaucoma: a review. JAMA 2014;14(311):1901–1911. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.3192.
  2. Razeghinejad MR, Fudemberg SJ, Spaeth GL. The changing conceptual basis of trabeculectomy: a review of past and current surgical techniques. Surv Ophthalmol 2012;2(57):1–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2011.07.005.
  3. Molteno AC. New implant for drainage in glaucoma. Clinical trial Br J Ophthalmol 1969;53(9):606–615. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.53.9.606.
  4. Caprioli J, Kim JH, Friedman DS, et al. Special commentary: supporting innovation for safe and effective minimally invasive glaucoma surgery: summary of a joint meeting of the American Glaucoma Society and the Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC, February 26, 2014. Ophthalmology 2015;122(9):1795–1801. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.02.029.
  5. Pillunat LE, Erb C, Jünemann AG, et al. Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS): a review of surgical procedures using stents. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ 2017;11:1583. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S135316.
  6. Gedde SJ, Feuer WJ, Lim KS, et al. Treatment outcomes in the primary tube versus trabeculectomy study after 3 years of follow-up. Ophthalmology 2020;127(3):333–345. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.10.002.
  7. Rosentreter A, Schild AM, Jordan JF, et al. A prospective randomised trial of trabeculectomy using mitomycin C vs an ologen implant in open angle glaucoma. Eye Lond Engl 2010;24(9):1449–1457. DOI: 10.1038/eye.2010.106.
  8. Rosentreter A, Gaki S, Cursiefen C, et al. Trabeculectomy using mitomycin C versus an atelocollagen implant: clinical results of a randomized trial and histopathologic findings. Ophthalmol J Int Ophtalmol Int J Ophthalmol Z Augenheilkd 2014;231(3):133–140. DOI: 10.1159/000356400.
  9. Boey P-Y, Narayanaswamy A, Zheng C, et al. Imaging of blebs after phacotrabeculectomy with ologen collagen matrix implants. Br J Ophthalmol 2011;95(3):340–344. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2009.177758.
  10. Sen M, Midha N, Sidhu T, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing mitomycin C combined with ologen implant versus mitomycin C alone as adjuvants in trabeculectomy. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 2018;1(2):88–98. DOI: 10.1016/j.ogla.2018.07.003.
  11. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, et al. Treatment outcomes in the tube versus trabeculectomy (TVT) study after five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol 2012;153(5):789–803.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.10.026.
  12. Janson BJ, Alward WL, Kwon YH, et al. Glaucoma-associated corneal endothelial cell damage: a review. Surv Ophthalmol 2018;63(4):500–506. DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2017.11.002.
  13. Stein JD, Ruiz D, Belsky D, et al. Longitudinal rates of postoperative adverse outcomes after glaucoma surgery among medicare beneficiaries 1994 to 2005. Ophthalmology 2008;115:1109–1116.e7.
  14. Kaplan RI, De Moraes CG, Cioffi GA, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of the baerveldt implant, trabeculectomy with mitomycin, and medical treatment. JAMA Ophthalmol 2015;133(5):560–567. DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.44.
  15. Weiner A, Cohn AD, Balasubramaniam M, et al. Glaucoma tube shunt implantation through the ciliary sulcus in pseudophakic eyes with high risk of corneal decompensation. J Glaucoma 2010;19(6):405–411. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181bdb52d.
  16. Eslami Y, Mohammadi M, Fakhraie G, et al. Glaucoma valve implantation with tube insertion through the ciliary sulcus in pseudophakic/aphakic eyes. J Glaucoma 2014;23(2):115–118. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e318265bc0b.
  17. Wellik SR, Dale EA. A review of the iStent® trabecular micro-bypass stent: safety and efficacy. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ 2015;15(9):677–684. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S57217.
  18. Samuelson TW, Katz LJ, Wells JM, et al. Randomized evaluation of the trabecular micro-bypass stent with phacoemulsification in patients with glaucoma and cataract. Ophthalmology 2011;118(3):459–467. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.07.007.
  19. Fea AM, Belda JI, Rękas M, et al. Prospective unmasked randomized evaluation of the iStent inject (®) versus two ocular hypotensive agents in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol 2014;8:875–882. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S59932.
  20. Huang AS, Penteado RC, Saha SK, et al. Fluorescein aqueous angiography in live normal human eyes. J Glaucoma 2018;27(11):957–964. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001042.
  21. Schlenker MB, Gulamhusein H, Conrad-Hengerer I, et al. Efficacy, safety, and risk factors for failure of standalone ab interno gelatin microstent implantation versus standalone trabeculectomy. Ophthalmology 2017;124(11):1579–1588. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.05.004.
  22. Gupta C, Mathews D. XEN® stent complications: a case series. BMC Ophthalmol 2019;19(1):253. DOI: 10.1186/s12886-019-1267-y.
  23. De Gregorio A, Pedrotti E, Russo L, et al. Minimally invasive combined glaucoma and cataract surgery: clinical results of the smallest ab interno gel stent. Int Ophthalmol 2018;38(3):1129–1134. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-017-0571-x.
  24. Pinto Ferreira N, Abegão Pinto L, Marques-Neves C. XEN gel stent internal ostium occlusion: Ab-interno revision. J Glaucoma 2017;26(4):e150–e152. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000625.
  25. RECALL: XEN 45 Implants by Allergan [Internet]. American Academy of Ophthalmology. 2019 [accessed 2021Jan 26]. Available from: https://www.aao.org/eye-on-advocacy-article/recall-xen-45-implants-by-allergan.
  26. Lee RMH, Bouremel Y, Eames I, et al. The implications of an ab interno versus ab externo surgical approach on outflow resistance of a subconjunctival drainage device for intraocular pressure control. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2019;8(3):58. DOI: 10.1167/tvst.8.3.58.
  27. UPDATE: Potential Eye Damage from Alcon CyPass Micro-Stent Used to Treat Open-Angle Glaucoma: FDA Safety Communication. FDA [Internet]. 2019 Dec 20 [accessed 2021 Jan 26]; Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/update-potential-eye-damage-alcon-cypass-micro-stent-used-treat-open-angle-glaucoma-fda-safety.
  28. Lass JH, Benetz BA, He J, et al. Corneal endothelial cell loss and morphometric changes 5 years after phacoemulsification with or without CyPass micro-stent. Am J Ophthalmol 2019;208:211–218. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2019.07.016.
  29. Sarkisian SR. The ex-Press mini glaucoma shunt: technique and experience. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2009;16(3):134–137. DOI: 10.4103/0974-9233.56226.
  30. Gonzalez-Rodriguez JM, Trope GE, Drori-Wagschal L, et al. Comparison of trabeculectomy versus ex-PRESS: 3-year follow-up. Br J Ophthalmol 2016;100(9):1269–1273. DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307161.
  31. Arimura S, Miyake S, Iwasaki K, et al. Randomised clinical trial for postoperative complications after ex-PRESS implantation versus trabeculectomy with 2-year follow-up. Sci Rep 2018;8(1):16168. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-34627-w.
  32. Arimura S, Takihara Y, Miyake S, et al. Randomized clinical trial for early postoperative complications of ex-PRESS implantation versus trabeculectomy: complications postoperatively of ex-PRESS versus trabeculectomy study (CPETS). Sci Rep 2016;6(1):1–7. DOI: 10.1038/srep26080.
  33. Grover DS, Fellman MA, Fellman RL. New ab interno technique for removal of iris-embedded EX-PRESS shunt and chronic eye pain caused by shunt malpositioning. JAMA Ophthalmol 2013;131(10):1356–1358. DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.4274.
  34. Teng CC, Radcliffe N, Huang JE, et al. Ex-PRESS glaucoma shunt dislocation into the anterior chamber. J Glaucoma 2008;17(8):687–689. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181666595.
  35. Angmo D, Sharma R, Temkar S, et al. Evaluation of ExPress glaucoma filtration device in Indian patients with advanced glaucoma. Indian J Ophthalmol 2015;63(5):459. DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.159894.
  36. Ahuja Y, Ma Khin Pyi S, Malihi M, et al. Clinical results of ab interno trabeculotomy using the trabectome for open-angle glaucoma: the mayo clinic series in Rochester, Minnesota. Am J Ophthalmol 2013;156(5):927–935.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.06.001.
  37. Jea SY, Francis BA, Vakili G, et al. Ab interno trabeculectomy versus trabeculectomy for open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2012;119(1):36–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.06.046.
  38. Gillmann K, Mansouri K. Minimally invasive glaucoma surgery: where is the evidence? Asia pac. J Ophthalmol (Phila) 2020;9(3):203–214. DOI: 10.1097/APO.0000000000000294.
  39. Pinchuk L, Riss I, Batlle JF, et al. The use of poly(styrene-blockisobutylene-block-styrene) as a microshunt to treat glaucoma. Regen Biomater 2016;3(2):137–142. DOI: 10.1093/rb/rbw005.
  40. Lee RMH, Bouremel Y, Eames I, et al. Translating minimally invasive glaucoma surgery devices. Clin Transl Sci 2020;13(1):14–25. DOI: 10.1111/cts.12660.
  41. Sheheitli H, Tirpack AR, Parrish 2nd RK. Which patients would most likely to benefit: MIGS or MEGS, which one is it? Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) 2019;8(6):436–440. DOI: 10.1097/APO.0000000000000260.
  42. Pahlitzsch M, Klamann MK, Pahlitzsch ML, et al. Is there a change in the quality of life comparing the micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) and the filtration technique trabeculectomy in glaucoma patients? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2017;255(2):351–357. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-016-3550-4.
  43. Lazcano-Gomez G, Ramos-Cadena MLA, Torres-Tamayo M, et al. Cost of glaucoma treatment in a developing country over a 5-year period. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95(47):e5341. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005341.
  44. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 1992;146:473–481.
  45. Cohen D. FDA official: “clinical trial system is broken”. BMJ 2013;347(dec05 3):f6980. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f6980.
  46. Tanna AP, Rademaker AW, de Moraes CG, et al. Collagen matrix vs mitomycin-C in trabeculectomy and combined phacoemulsification and trabeculectomy: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Ophthalmol 2016;16(1):217. DOI: 10.1186/s12886-016-0393-z.
  47. Spence D. Evidence based medicine is broken. BMJ 2014;348(jan03 1):g22. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g22.
  48. Rosdahl JA, Gupta D. Prospective studies of minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries: systematic review and quality assessment. Clin Ophthalmol 2020;14:231–243. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S239772.
  49. Mathew DJ, McKay BR, Basilious A, et al. Adherence to world glaucoma association guidelines for surgical trials in the era of microinvasive glaucoma surgeries. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 2019;2(2):78–85. DOI: 10.1016/j.ogla.2019.01.007.
  50. Agrawal P, Bradshaw SE. Systematic literature review of clinical and economic outcomes of micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) in primary open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmol Ther 2018;7(1):49–73. DOI: 10.1007/s40123-018-0131-0.
  51. Nichani P, Popovic MM, Schlenker MB, et al. Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery: a review of 3476 eyes. Surv Ophthalmol 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2020.09.005S0039-6257(20)30135-1.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.