IStent versus iStent inject implantation combined with phacoemulsification in open angle glaucoma.

Abstract

Purpose:To compare the outcomes of iStent vs. iStent inject implantation combined with phacoemulsification.Methods:This single center retrospective comparative case series included subjects with open angle glaucoma who underwent iStent or iStent inject implantation combined with phacoemulsification with ≥1 year follow-up. The main outcome measures were in-group and between-group changes in intraocular pressure (IOP) and medication number, proportion of eyes that achieved IOP ≤15 mmHg, and surgical success defined as 20% IOP reduction from baseline at 6/12 months. Univariate/multivariate regression analyses were done to identify predictors of surgical failure.Results:One hundred ninety-seven eyes of 148 patients were included (122 iStent, 75 iStent inject). Both groups achieved significant IOP and medication reduction at months 6/12 (P < 0.05). At month 6, IOP was significantly lower in iStent inject vs. iStent eyes (P = 0.003), but the difference was insignificant by month 12 (P = 0.172). Medication number was comparable in both groups at months 6/12 (P > 0.05). More iStent inject eyes achieved IOP ≤15 mmHg at month 6 (P = 0.003) and 12 (P = 0.047). Surgical success was comparable in both groups at months 6/12 (P > 0.05). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed similar cumulative rate of surgical failure at year-1 in both groups (P = 0.644). The multivariate model identified older age (P = 0.017) and lower baseline IOP (P = 0.002) as the strongest predictors of surgical failure.Conclusion:Compared to iStent, iStent inject achieved lower IOP at month 6 and higher proportion of eyes achieved IOP ≤15 mmHg at month 6/12. However, surgical success was similar in both groups. Predictors of surgical failure were older age and lower baseline IOP rather than the stent type.