Advertisement

Ab interno canaloplasty (ABiC)—12-month results of a new minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS)

  • Anja-Maria DavidsEmail author
  • Milena Pahlitzsch
  • Alexander Boeker
  • Sibylle Winterhalter
  • Anna-Karina Maier-Wenzel
  • Matthias Klamann
Glaucoma
  • 73 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to assess whether the ab interno canaloplasty is a reasonable minimally invasive method to lower significantly the IOP level and number of antiglaucomatous medication over a certain period of time in adult primary open angle glaucoma (POAG).

Methods

In this retrospective cohort outcome study, 36 eyes of 28 POAG patients (mean age 74.8 ± 9.3 years) with an IOP above target pressure were included. Ab interno canaloplasty (ABiC) was performed in all subjects (MEyeTech GmbH, Alsdorf, Germany) as sole procedure in pseudophakic eyes (n = 20) or in combination with cataract surgery in phakic eyes (n = 16). The intraocular pressure (IOP) and the number of glaucoma medication were assessed preoperatively, day 1, week 6, month 3, month 6, and month 12.

Results

IOP decreased from 19.8 ± 4.1 to 13.8 ± 3 mmHg at 12 months follow-up (n = 21, p < 0.001). The IOP reduction showed significant results at all time points (1 day p < 0.001; 6 weeks p < 0.001; 3 months p < 0.001; 6 months p = 0.001; 12 months p < 0.001). Glaucoma therapy was stabilized at 2.1 ± 1.6 number of medications after 12 months postoperatively. There was no significant difference in the number of medication at 12 months follow-up (p = 1.0). No major perioperative complications can be reported.

Conclusion

The ABiC effectively lowers the IOP in POAG in the short term follow-up of 12 months. A reduction of glaucoma therapy cannot be achieved and should be discussed with the patients prior to surgery.

Keywords

Glaucoma Ab interno canaloplasty (ABiC) POAG MIGS 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

The study complied with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki and followed the regulations of the Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Guidelines.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Alm A, Nilsson SF (2009) Uveoscleral outflow--a review. Exp Eye Res 88(4):760–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McAlinden C (2014) Selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) vs other treatment modalities for glaucoma: systematic review. Eye. 28(3):249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burr J, Azuara-Blanco A, Avenell A (2005) Medical versus surgical interventions for open angle glaucoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD004399Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Olayanju JA, Hassan MB, Hodge DO, Khanna CL (2015) Trabeculectomy-related complications in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1985 through 2010. JAMA Ophthalmol 133(5):574–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gedde SJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD et al (2012) Postoperative complications in the tube versus trabeculectomy (TVT) study during five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol 153(5):804–814 e801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shaarawy TGF, Sherwood M, World Glaucoma Association (2009) WGA guidelines on design and reporting of glaucoma surgical trials. Kugler Publications, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Richter GM, Coleman AL (2016) Minimally invasive glaucoma surgery: current status and future prospects. Clin Ophthalmol 10:189–206Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Resende AF, Patel NS, Waisbourd M, Katz LJ (2016) iStent(R) trabecular microbypass stent: an update. J Ophthalmol 2016:2731856Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klamann MK, Gonnermann J, Pahlitzsch M et al (2015) iStent inject in phakic open angle glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 253(6):941–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luebke J, Boehringer D, Neuburger M et al (2015) Refractive and visual outcomes after combined cataract and trabectome surgery: a report on the possible influences of combining cataract and trabectome surgery on refractive and visual outcomes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 253(3):419–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Le K, Saheb H (2014) iStent trabecular micro-bypass stent for open-angle glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol 8:1937–1945Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Voskanyan L, Garcia-Feijoo J, Belda JI et al (2014) Prospective, unmasked evaluation of the iStent(R) inject system for open-angle glaucoma: synergy trial. Adv Ther 31(2):189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fea AM, Belda JI, Rekas M et al (2014) Prospective unmasked randomized evaluation of the iStent inject ((R)) versus two ocular hypotensive agents in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol 8:875–882Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jordan JF, Wecker T, van Oterendorp C et al (2013) Trabectome surgery for primary and secondary open angle glaucomas. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 251(12):2753–2760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arriola-Villalobos P, Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Diaz-Valle D et al (2013) Mid-term evaluation of the new Glaukos iStent with phacoemulsification in coexistent open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and cataract. Br J Ophthalmol 97(10):1250–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ting JL, Damji KF, Stiles MC, Trabectome Study G (2012) Ab interno trabeculectomy: outcomes in exfoliation versus primary open-angle glaucoma. J Cataract Refract Surg 38(2):315–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Belovay GW, Naqi A, Chan BJ, Rateb M, Ahmed II (2012) Using multiple trabecular micro-bypass stents in cataract patients to treat open-angle glaucoma. J Cataract Refract Surg 38(11):1911–1917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Craven ER, Katz LJ, Wells JM, Giamporcaro JE, iStent Study G (2012) Cataract surgery with trabecular micro-bypass stent implantation in patients with mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma and cataract: two-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg 38(8):1339–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Samuelson TW, Katz LJ, Wells JM, Duh YJ, Giamporcaro JE, Group USiS (2011) Randomized evaluation of the trabecular micro-bypass stent with phacoemulsification in patients with glaucoma and cataract. Ophthalmology. 118(3):459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khaimi MA (2015) Canaloplasty: a minimally invasive and maximally effective glaucoma treatment. J Ophthalmol 2015:485065Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harvey BJ, Khaimi MA (2011) A review of canaloplasty. Saudi J Ophthalmol 25(4):329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mizoguchi T, Nishigaki S, Sato T, Wakiyama H, Ogino N (2015) Clinical results of Trabectome surgery for open-angle glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol 9:1889–1894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pahlitzsch M, Gonnermann J, Maier AK et al (2015) Trabeculectomy ab Interno in primary open angle glaucoma and exfoliative glaucoma. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 232(10):1198–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cagini C, Peruzzi C, Fiore T, Spadea L, Lippera M, Lippera S (2016) Canaloplasty: current value in the management of glaucoma. J Ophthalmol 2016:7080475Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyCharité – University Medicine BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations