IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0131770.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

iStent with Phacoemulsification versus Phacoemulsification Alone for Patients with Glaucoma and Cataract: A Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Monali S Malvankar-Mehta
  • Yiannis Iordanous
  • Yufeng Nancy Chen
  • Wan Wendy Wang
  • Sangita Shantilal Patel
  • John Costella
  • Cindy M L Hutnik

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS) have attracted significant attention, as they have been reported to lower intra-ocular pressure (IOP) and have an excellent safety profile. The iStent is an example of a minimally invasive glaucoma device that has received particular attention due to its early and wide spread utilization. There is a growing body of evidence supporting its use at the time of phacoemulsification to help lower IOP. However, it is still not clear how much of the IOP lowering effect can be attributed to the iStent, the crystalline lens extraction or both when inserted concurrently at the time of phacoemulsification. This has been an important issue in understanding its potential role in the glaucoma management paradigm. Purpose: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the IOP lowering effect of iStent insertion at the time of phacoemulsification versus phacoemulsification alone for patients with glaucoma and cataracts. Methods: A systematic review was conducted utilizing various databases. Studies examining the IOP lowering effect of iStent insertion in combination with phacoemulsification, as well as studies examining the IOP lowering effect of phacoemulsification alone were included. Thirty-seven studies, reporting on 2495 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The percentage reduction in IOP (IOPR%) and mean reduction in topical glaucoma medications after surgery were determined. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was computed as a measure of the treatment effect for continuous outcomes taking into account heterogeneity. Fixed-effect and random-effect models were applied. Results: A 4% IOP reduction (IOPR%) from baseline occurred following phacoemulsification as a solo procedure compared to 9% following an iStent implant with phacoemulsification, and 27% following 2 iStents implants with phacoemulsification. Compared with cataract extraction alone, iStent with phacoemulsification resulted in significant reduction in the post-operative IOP (IOPR%) (SMD = -0.46, 95% CI: [-0.87, -0.06]). A weighted mean reduction in the number of glaucoma medications per patient was 1.01 following phacoemulsification alone compared to 1.33 after one iStent implant with phacoemulsification, and 1.1 after 2 iStent implants with phacoemulsification. Compared to cataract extraction alone, iStent with cataract extraction showed a significant decrease in the number of glaucoma medications (SMD = -0.65, 95% CI: [-1.18, -0.12]). Funnel plots suggested the absence of publication bias. Conclusion: Both iStent implantation with concurrent phacoemulsification and phacoemulsification alone result in a significant decrease in IOP and topical glaucoma medications. In terms of both reductions, iStent with phacoemulsification significantly outperforms phacoemulsification alone.

Suggested Citation

  • Monali S Malvankar-Mehta & Yiannis Iordanous & Yufeng Nancy Chen & Wan Wendy Wang & Sangita Shantilal Patel & John Costella & Cindy M L Hutnik, 2015. "iStent with Phacoemulsification versus Phacoemulsification Alone for Patients with Glaucoma and Cataract: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-23, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0131770
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131770
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131770
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131770&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0131770?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0131770. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.