Subconjunctival filtration in evolution: current evidence on MicroShunt implantation for treating patients with glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although traditional surgical procedures for glaucoma (such as trabeculectomy and tube-shunt implantation) can significantly reduce intraocular pressure (IOP), they are associated with numerous complications, some of which are vision-threatening, or involve prolonged recovery or a highly intensive postoperative course. Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) procedures have shown better safety but reduced efficacy in achieving target IOP. Combinations of these methods have led to the development of subconjunctival micro-invasive procedures with safety comparable to traditional surgery and greater efficacy than minimally invasive methods. This review describes the use of one of these devices, the poly(styrene-block-isobutylene-block-styrene) (SIBS)-based PreserFlo MicroShunt (Santen, Emeryville, CA), in the surgical treatment of patients with glaucoma. MAIN TEXT: The MicroShunt is an 8.5-mm tube made of an inert polymer with no endplate, an internal diameter of 70 μm, and fins intended to prevent peritubular flow and anchor the device within the sclera to prevent proximal migration into the eye. Following ab externo implantation, the tube provides a conduit for flow of aqueous humor from the anterior chamber into the subconjunctival/sub-Tenon space. Clinical trials to date have shown that, when paired with mitomycin C (MMC) treatment, MicroShunt implantation significantly reduced both IOP and the number of glaucoma medications. These IOP-lowering results were found both when surgery was performed alone and with phacoemulsification. The MicroShunt also showed a safety profile comparable to that of traditional filtering surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The MicroShunt and other novel subconjunctival procedures have shown substantial IOP reductions while mitigating hypotony-related complications. MMC, which modulates fibrosis and scarring postoperatively, is essential to surgical success. Randomized, long-term clinical trials will further clarify the role of controlled micro-incisional device-assisted ab externo glaucoma filtering surgery in long-term glaucoma management.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".