. 2019 May 1;33(10):1577–1583. doi: 10.1038/s41433-019-0452-9

Table 1.

Surgical options listed in the survey for each of three preoperative scenarios and the frequencies chosen

Surgical options	Bleb-forming	Requires hardware implant	Violates conjunctiva	Total frequency	Percent
Trabeculotomy ab interno (GATT^a or Trab360^b)				176	20.3
Xen gel stent^b	x	x		161	18.6
iStent (two devices)^b		x		124	14.3
Trabeculectomy (traditional, augmented with mitomycin C)	x		x	122	14.1
Canaloplasty, ab interno (ABiC^a or Visco360^b)				61	7.1
Trabectome^b				43	5.0
Baerveldt glaucoma implant^b or other non-valved device	x	x	x	42	4.9
Cypass microstent^b		x		38	4.4
Trabeculectomy (ExPRESS^b, augmented with mitomycin C)	x	x	x	30	3.5
Ahmed glaucoma valve^b	x	x	x	18	2.1
iStent (one device)^b		x		18	2.1
Canaloplasty, ab externo with suture stent			x	12	1.4
Trabeculotomy, ab externo			x	11	1.3
Deep sclerectomy (manual or laser-assisted)			x	7	0.8
Canaloplasty, ab externo without suture stent			x	2	0.2
Total				865	100

^aGATT (gonioscopy-assisted transluminal trabeculotomy), ABiC (ab interno canaloplasty)

^bAhmed glaucoma valve (New World Medical, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, USA), Baerveldt glaucoma implant (Johnson & Johnson Vision, Jacksonville, FL, USA), Visco360 and Trab360 (Sight Sciences, Inc. Menlo Park, CA, USA), Cypass microstent (Alcon, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA), iStent (Glaukos, San Clemente, CA, USA), ExPRESS shunt (Alcon, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA), Trabectome (NeoMedix Corporation, Tustin, CA, USA), Xen gel stent (Allergan, Dublin, Ireland)