Table 3 Safety results of Hydrus Microstent studies

Gandolfi et al. 2016 [45]

21 Hydrus

19.0%

–

–

–

–

19.0%

4.8%

9.5%

–

24 Canaloplasty

29.2%

–

–

–

–

25.0%

12.5%

8.3%

–

Fea et al. 2017 [46]

92 Hydrus + Phaco

1.1%

–

8.7%

1.1%

1.1%

1.1%

–

1.1% Trab

CME 1.1%

CRVO 1.1%

Fea et al. 2017 [51]

31 Hydrus

6.4%

3.2% Edema

–

–

–

–

6.4%

–

–

25 SLT

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Mild eye discomfort 40%

Al-Mugheiry et al. 2017 [52]

25 Hydrus + Phaco

36.0%

28.0% Edema

20.0%

4.0%

–

–

4.0% POD1, 20.0% POW1

–

Anterior uveitis 48.0% POD1, 28.0% POW1

CME 4.0%

Stent-iris touch 4.0%

PCO 16.0%

Pfeiffer et al. 2015 [53]

50 Hydrus + Phaco

–

2.0% POM1 Descemet folds

12.0% POY1

18.8% POY2

–

–

–

4.0% POY1

2.1% POY2

Mac edema 2.0% POY1

Optic disc hem 2.0% POY1

Vitreal mac traction 2.1% POY2

50 Phaco

–

2.0% POM1 Descemet folds

2.0% POY1

2.0% POY2

–

–

–

4.0% POY1

4.1% POY2

Mac edema 4.0% POY1

Vitreal mac traction 2.0% POY1

ERM 4.0% POY1, 2.0% POY2

Retinal detachment 2.0% POY1

Wound dehiscence 2.0% POY1

AION 2.0% POY1

Iris erosion 6.0% POM1

Samuelson et al. 2019

[21]

369 Hydrus + Phaco

0.5%

1.4% Edema

1.1% Abrasion

14.9%

3.8%

0.8%

0.5%

0.3% Paracentesis

0.8% Laser membranectomy

Uveitis/iritis 5.6%

Conjunctivitis 5.75%

CME 2.2%

ERM 1.6%

Subconj hem 2.4%

187 Phaco

0.5%

–

2.1%

–

–

–

2.7%

2.1% Tube shunt/Trab

1.0% Paracentesis

0.5% SLT

Uveitis/iritis 3.7%

Conjunctivitis 7.0%

CME 2.1%

ERM 1.6%

Neovascular glaucoma 0.5%

Ahmed et al. 2019 [56]

75 Hydrus

–

–

–

12.2%

–

1.3%

4.1%

–

New cataract 2.6%

77, 2 iStent

–

–

–

13.2%

–

–

5.2%

2.6% Trab/GDD

New cataract 1.3%

Cataract surgery 1.3%