Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery: Where Is the Evidence?

Purpose

The last decade has witnessed an unprecedented growth in glaucoma treatment options through the introduction of minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS). The aim of the present review is to provide an understanding of the currently available MIGS and to examine what data are currently available to guide treatment choice.

Design

Meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized and non-randomized control trials.

Methods

Out of 2567 articles identified, a total of 77 articles were retained for analysis, including 28 comparative studies and 12 randomized control trials. Overall, 7570 eyes were included. When data permitted, the weighted mean difference in intraocular pressure reduction was calculated for comparison purposes.

Results

Weighted mean intraocular pressure reductions from all analyzed studies were: 15.3% (iStent), 29.1% (iStent inject), 36.2% (ab interno canaloplasty), 34.4% (Hydrus), 36.5% (gonioscopically-assisted transluminal trabeculotomy), 24.0% (trabectome), 25.1% (Kahook dual blade), 30.2% (Cypass), 38.8% (XEN), and 50.0% (Preserflo).

Conclusions

One of the advantages of the heterogenous range of available MIGS options is the chance to tailor therapy in an individualized manner. However, high-quality data are required to make this choice more than an educated guess. Overall, this review confirms the efficiency of assessed MIGS compared with standalone phacoemulsification, but it highlights that only few studies compare different MIGS techniques and even fewer assess MIGS against criterion standard treatments. Current evidence, while non-negligible, is mostly limited to heterogenous nonrandomized studies and uncontrolled retrospective comparisons, with few quality randomized control trials. We suggest that future research should be comparative and include relevant comparators, standardized to report key outcome features, long-term to assess sustainability and late complications, and ideally randomized.