Five-Year, Prospective, Randomized, Multi-Surgeon Trial of Two Trabecular Bypass Stents versus Prostaglandin for Newly Diagnosed Open-Angle Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate 5-year safety and efficacy of 2 trabecular micro-bypass stents versus prostaglandin as initial stand-alone treatment for newly diagnosed, treatment-naive primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled, multi-surgeon clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Enrolled eyes (n = 101) were phakic and had a confirmed POAG diagnosis, normal angle anatomy, mean diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) 21 to 40 mmHg, and vertical cup-to-disc (C:D) ratio ≤0.9. METHODS: Eyes were randomized (1:1) to receive either 2 stents (iStent trabecular micro-bypass; Glaukos Corporation, San Clemente, CA) or once-daily topical travoprost. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary and secondary efficacy end points were the change from screening in mean diurnal IOP at months 12 and 24, respectively, without glaucoma surgery or add-on medication (any medication in stent eyes or a second medication in travoprost eyes). Two additional secondary end points were the proportion of eyes achieving treatment success at months 12 and 24, defined as IOP 6 to 18 mmHg without additional medication or glaucoma surgery. This report shows these efficacy measures through 60 months. Safety measures included best-corrected visual acuity, C:D ratio, visual field, pachymetry, complications, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 101 enrolled eyes (54 stent eyes, 47 travoprost eyes), 90 eyes (49 stent eyes, 41 travoprost eyes) completed 5-year follow-up. Five-year mean diurnal IOP was 16.5±1.2 mmHg in stent eyes (35.3% reduced vs. 25.5±2.5 mmHg preoperatively; P < 0.0001) and 16.3±1.9 mmHg in travoprost eyes (35.1% reduced vs. 25.1±4.6 mmHg preoperatively; P < 0.0001). During follow-up, add-on medication was initiated in 12 stent eyes (22.2% of the initial 54-eyes) and 18 travoprost eyes (38.3% of the initial 47-eyes). By 5 years, 17% (6/35) of stent eyes and 44% (14/32) of travoprost eyes needed add-on medication to control IOP (P = 0.017). Treatment success was achieved in 77% (27/35) of stent eyes and 53% (17/32) of travoprost eyes (P = 0.04). Both groups exhibited excellent safety. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective randomized trial demonstrates 5-year effectiveness and safety of 2 trabecular bypass stents in patients with newly diagnosed, treatment-naive POAG, with comparably favorable outcomes as topical prostaglandin.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".