Skip to main content

Table 2 Efficacy results of Hydrus Microstent studies

From: Hydrus microstent implantation for surgical management of glaucoma: a review of design, efficacy and safety

Publication Study Design N Eyes at Baseline N Eyes at Follow-up Glaucoma Type Follow-up (months) Baseline IOP
Medicated (M)
Washed-Out (W)
IOP (mmHg) at Follow-up (months) Baseline Meds Meds at Follow-up (Months) Success / Failure Criteria % Successful at (Months) Reoperation Rate
Gandolfi
et al. 2016 [45]
Retrospective comparative case series 21 Hydrus 100% 12 POAG
7 PXG
2 PDG
24 24.0 ± 6.0 (M) 15.0 ± 3.0 (24) 3.1 ± 0.6 0.9 ± 0.9 (24) To achieve post-surgery ‘target’ IOP (mid-high teens):
Complete success = no meds
Qualified success = some meds
Failure = glaucoma surgery
Complete = 33.3% (24)
Qualified = 57.1% (24)
Failure = 9.5% (24)
9.5%
24 Canaloplasty 100% 16 POAG
8 PXG
26.0 ± 4.0 (M) 16.0 ± 2.0 (24) 2.7 ± 0.8 0.7 ± 0.9 (24) Complete = 50.0% (24)
Qualified = 41.7% (24)
Failure = 8.3% (24)
8.3%
Fea
et al. 2017 [46]
Retrospective case series 92 Hydrus + Phaco 80% (12 m)
73% (24 m)
84 POAG
7 PXG
1 PDG
24 19.4 ± 4.4 (M) 15.5 ± 2.7 (12)
15.7 ± 2.5 (24)
2.1 ± 1.0 0.6 ± 1.0 (12)
0.7 ± 1.0 (24)
1) unmedicated IOP ≤18
2) unmedicated IOP ≤15
1) 70% (12)
1) 52% (24)
2) 36% (12)
2) 25% (24)
0% (12 m)
1% (24 m)
Fea
et al. 2017 [51]
Prospective interventional comparative case series 31 Hydrus 97% POAG 12 23.1 ± 5.1 (M) 16.5 ± 2.6 (12) 2.29 ± 0.83 0.9 ± 1.04 (12) Target IOP (mid-teens) maintained with no medication 47% (12) 0%
25 SLT 100% POAG 23.2 ± 2.2 (M) 15.9 ± 2.5 (12) 2.48 ± 0.92 2.0 ± 0.91 (12) 4% (12) 0%
Al-Mugheiry
et al. 2017 [52]
Prospective observational cohort 25 Hydrus + Phaco 100% (12 m) 21 POAG
2 NTG
2 PXG
16.8 ± 5.6 (12–24) 18.1 ± 3.6 (M) 15.3 ± 2.2 (Last f/u) 1.96 ± 0.96 0.04 ± 0.20
(Last f/u)
1) unmedicated IOP < 21
2) unmedicated IOP < 18
3) unmedicated IOP < 15
1) 96% (Last f/u)
2) 80% (Last f/u)
3) 32% (Last f/u)
0%
Pfeiffer
et al. 2015 [53]
Randomized Controlled Trial, single masked, multicentre 50 Hydrus + Phaco 96% (12 m)
96% (24 m)
92% W (12 m)
88% W (24 m)
45 POAG
5 PXG
24 18.9 ± 3.3 (M)
26.3 ± 4.4 (W)
16–17 (12) (M)
16–17 (24) (M)
16.6 ± 2.8 (12) (W)
16.9 ± 3.3 (24) (W)
2.0 ± 1.0 0.5 ± NR (12)
0.5 ± 1.0 (24)
≥20% reduction in washed out diurnal IOP 88% (12)
80% (24)
0% (12 m)
2.1% (24 m)
50 Phaco 98% (12 m)
90% (24 m)
88% W (12 m)
68% W (24 m)
41 POAG
8 PXG
1 PDG
18.6 ± 3.8 (M)
26.6 ± 4.2 (W)
16–17 (12) (M)
16–17 (24) (M)
17.4 ± 3.7 (12) (W)
19.2 ± 4.7 (24) (W)
2.0 ± 1.1 NR ± NR (12)
1.0 ± 1.0 (24)
74% (12)
46% (24)
0% (12 m)
4.1% (24 m)
Samuelson
et al. 2019
[21]
Randomized Controlled Trial, single masked, multicentre 369 Hydrus + Phaco 95% POAG 24 17.9 ± 3.1 (M)
25.5 ± 3.0 (W)
16.8 ± 3.2 (24) (M)
17.4 ± 3.7 (24) (W)
1.7 ± 0.9 0.3 ± 0.8 (24) ≥20% reduction in washed out diurnal IOP 85.9% (12)
77.3% (24)
0%
187 Phaco POAG 18.1 ± 3.1 (M)
25.4 ± 2.9 (W)
17.4 ± 3.0 (24) (M)
19.2 ± 3.8 (24) (W)
1.7 ± 0.9 0.7 ± 0.9 (24) 70.0% (12)
57.8% (24)
2.1%
Ahmed
et al. 2019 [56]
Randomized Controlled Trial, single masked, multicentre 75 Hydrus 97%
40% W
72 POAG
3 PXG/PDG
12 19.0 ± 3.9 (M)
27.5 ± 4.4 (W)
17.3 ± 3.7 (24) (M)
21.5 ± NR (24) (W)
2.5 ± 0.7 1.0 ± NR (24) IOP ≤18, no meds, no secondary glaucoma surgery/ trabeculoplasty/cataract surgery 35.6% (12) 0
77, 2 iStents 97%
31% W
71 POAG
6 PXG/PDG
19.1 ± 3.6 (M)
27.3 ± 4.2 (W)
18.1 ± 3.7 (24) (M)
23.3 ± NR (24) (W)
2.7 ± 0.8 1.7 ± NR (24) 10.5% (12) 2.6%
  1. IOP intraocular pressure, M medicated, W washed-out, POAG primary open angle glaucoma, PXG pseudoexfoliation glaucoma, PDG pigmentary glaucoma, NTG normal tension glaucoma, SLT selective laser trabeculoplasty, NR not reported, Last f/u last follow up, m month