Skip to main content
editorial
. 2019 May-Aug;13(2):45–49. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1248

Table 2.

Success rates and IOP reduction with MIGS

Procedure Study Follow-up IOP baseline (mm Hg) mean ± SD (n, number of eyes) Postoperative IOP % IOP reduction Medications baseline Medications at last FU
iStent combined Craven9 24 18.6 ± 3.4 (117) 17.1 ± 2.9 8.1 ± 24.0 1.6 ± 0.8 0.3 ± 0.6
Arriola-Villalobos10 48 19.4 ± 1.9 (16) 16.5 ± 3.6 15.2 ± 22.4 1.3 ± 0.5 0.5 ± 0.6
Fea11 48 17.8 ± 2.7 15.9 ± 2.3 10.7 ± 19.9 1.9 ± 0.9 0.5 ± 0.8
2 iStent combined Arriola Villalobos (INJECT)12 60 20.0 ± 3.7 16.2 ± 2.3 18.9 ± 24.2 1.3 ± 0.7 1.1 ± 0.8
Solo
  • 1 iStent Katz13 18 19.8 ± 1.3 (36) 15.6 ± 1.5 21.2 ± 10.2 1.7 ± 0.6 0.2 ± 0.4
  • 2 iStents 18 20.1 ± 1.6 (41) 13.8 ± 1.3 31.3 ± 10.3 1.8 ± 0.5 0.1 ± 0.4
  • 3 iStents 18 20.4 ± 1.8 (38) 12.1 ± 1.2 40.7 ± 10.7 1.5 ± 0.7 0.1 ± 0.3
Hydrus combined Pfeiffer14 24 18.9 ± 3.3 (50) 16.5 ± 2.9 12.7 ± 23.7 2.0 ± 1.0 0.5 ± 1.0
Solo Gandolfi15 24 24.0 ± 6.0 (21) 15.0 ± 3.0 37.5 ± 28.0 3.1 ± 0.6 0.9 ± 0.9
Xen Widder16 8.5 (1–23) 24.3 ± 6.6 16.8 ± 7.6 2.6 ± 1.1 0.2 ± 0.7
InnFocus Battle17 36 23.8 ± 5.3 10.7 ± 3.5 55 2.4 ± 0.9 0.7 ± 1.1
ECP combined Francis18 24 18.1 ± 3.0 (80) 16.0 ± 3.3 10 2.4 ± 1.0 2.0 ± 1.0
Siegel19 36 17.2 ± 4.8 (261) 14.6 ± 3.1 12.6 ± 1.4 1.3 ± 0.6 0.2 ± 0.6