SUSTAINING LOW IOP TO PRESERVE VISION REMAINS AN UNMET NEED1

Hear it from your peers

Sustained IOP reduction is more important than ever to meet the long-term vision preservation needs of today’s glaucoma patients.1

More Surgeon Perspectives

  • Video player still image of Dr Leon Herndon

    Earlier Surgery

    “Achieving lower pressures early on with safer options for patients will be beneficial in the long run.”

  • Video player still image of Dr I. Paul Singh

    Predictable Post-op

    “A device that enables IOP control even after a patient leaves our practice could help us better prevent progression.”

  • Video player still image of Dr Arsham Sheybani

    Device Innovation

  • Video still of Dr Paul Palmberg, Dr I. Paul Singh, Dr Leon Herndon, Dr Arsham Sheybani, Dr E. Randy Craven, and Dr Connie Okeke

    Video Library

    See glaucoma surgeons discuss ideas for how to improve patient outcomes

What is your experience?

Answer a question and see how your response compares with your peers’

How would a novel surgical device that achieved—and sustained—IOP similar to filtration therapy but with fewer adverse events change your approach to earlier surgery?

A lack of sustained low IOP in more-advanced POAG patients is a barrier to vision preservation1

Graphic depicting a range of glaucoma severity suitable for treatment with MIGS
Graphic with findings based on the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) Study

While it can achieve low IOP, trabeculectomy’s complication rates prevent it from being an earlier surgical option2,3

*Based on findings from the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) Study. Early complications: choroidal effusion, shallow/flat anterior chamber, wound leak, hyphema, aqueous misdirection, suprachoroidal hemorrhage, vitreous hemorrhage, decompression hemorrhage, decompression retinopathy, cystoid macular edema. Late complications: persistent corneal edema, dysesthesia, encapsulated bleb, choroidal effusion, cystoid macular edema, hypotony maculopathy, persistent diplopia, bleb leak, endophthalmitis/blebitis, chronic or recurrent iritis, retinal detachment, corneal ulcer, shallow/flat anterior chamber.2

Trabeculectomy success rates fall to only about 50% by 5 years post-op3,4

Trabeculectomy may achieve low IOP and reduce medication burden, but failure rates increase over time.

Based on findings from the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) Study.2,3,5

Graphic with results from Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) Study

Device innovation is needed to produce more-sustainable results to enable long-term vision preservation.1,4

References: 1. Bloom P, Au L. “Minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) is a poor substitute for trabeculectomy”—the great debate. Ophthalmol Ther. 2018;7(2):203-210. 2. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, et al; Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study Group. Three-year follow-up of the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148(5):670-684. 3. Edmunds B, Thompson JR, Salmon JF, Wormald RP. The National Survey of Trabeculectomy. II. Variations in operative technique and outcome. Eye (Lond). 2001;15:441-448. 4. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, et al; Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study Group. Treatment outcomes in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) Study after five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(5):789-803.e2. 5. Nilforushan N, Yadgari M, Astaraki A, Miraftabi A. Comparison of the long-term outcomes of resident versus attending performed trabeculectomy. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2017;29(3):169-174.

You are now leaving AdvancingGlaucomaSurgery.com

Click Continue to visit the external page you selected.

Continue