Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 2017 (2017), Article ID 2965725, 8 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2965725
Review Article

When Is Evidence Enough Evidence? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Trabectome as a Solo Procedure in Patients with Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma

1Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada
2Department of Ophthalmology, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada

Correspondence should be addressed to Monali S. Malvankar-Mehta; ac.no.nodnol.chjs@raknavlam.ilanom

Received 24 February 2017; Accepted 23 April 2017; Published 27 June 2017

Academic Editor: Van C. Lansingh

Copyright © 2017 Jeffrey T. Y. Chow et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the availability of evidence for one of the earliest available minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) procedures, the Trabectome. Various databases were searched up to December 20, 2016, for any published studies assessing the use of the Trabectome as a solo procedure in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). The standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated for the change in intraocular pressure (IOP) and number of glaucoma mediations used at 1-month, 6-month, and 12-month follow-up. After screening, three studies and one abstract with analyzable data were included. The meta-analysis showed statistically significant reductions in IOP and number of glaucoma medications used at all time points. Though the Trabectome as a solo procedure appears to lower IOP and reduces the number of glaucoma medications, more high-quality studies are required to make definitive conclusions. The difficulty of obtaining evidence may be one of the many obstacles that limit a full understanding of the potential safety and/or efficacy benefits compared to standard treatments. The time has come for a thoughtful and integrated approach with stakeholders to determine optimal access to care strategies for our patients.