SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2026
Minimally invasive trabecular meshwork surgery for open-angle glaucoma.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Efficacy of Canaloplasty for the Management of Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleGlaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible blindness. Minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) techniques, including those that open or enlarge Schlemm's canal (SC) behind the trabecular meshwork (SC-MIGS), have been introduced to help optimise control of intraocular pressure (IOP), which may slow the progression of glaucoma. This review supersedes and expands on the scope of a previous Cochrane review on ab interno trabecular bypass surgery with Trabectome for open-angle glaucoma.
objectivesTo assess the effects of minimally invasive Schlemm's canal surgery in comparison to medical, laser, or surgical treatment (including other MIGS techniques) in people with open-angle glaucoma. SEARCH
methodsWe used CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and trial registries, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors, to identify studies that are included in the review. The latest search date was 12 October 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SC-MIGS with other treatments (other MIGS, laser, phacoemulsification, or medical therapy). Reported SC-MIGS procedures included gonioscopy-assisted transluminal trabeculotomy, ab interno canaloplasty, Kahook Dual Blade goniotomy, excimer laser trabeculotomy, and ab interno trabeculectomy. We excluded studies of non-SC-MIGS (e.g. iStent inject, Hydrus, or other microstents), conventional non-MIGS glaucoma surgery (e.g. trabeculectomy), and non-MIGS laser procedures (e.g. selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT)). We included studies where procedures were combined with phacoemulsification and compared to phacoemulsification in combination with other glaucoma surgery or phacoemulsification alone. OUTCOMES: Critical outcomes were the proportion of participants medication-free at each time point and the rate of visual field progression (decibels/time) or proportion of participants whose visual field loss progressed during follow-up. Important outcomes included mean change in IOP; mean change in IOP-lowering drops taken per day; proportion of participants requiring further glaucoma surgery or laser; and mean change in health-related quality of life. Adverse event outcomes included loss of visual acuity, bleeding, endophthalmitis, and IOP spikes. All outcomes were measured in the short term (6 to 18 months), medium term (> 18 to 36 months), and long term (> 36 months or longer). RISK OF BIAS: We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. SYNTHESIS
methodsWe used standard Cochrane methodology. We undertook meta-analysis where the data appeared to be clinically, methodologically, and statistically homogeneous. We used a random-effects model when there were three or more studies, otherwise we used a fixed-effect model. Where we could not perform a meta-analysis due to high heterogeneity, we provided a narrative summary of the data following guidance in the Cochrane Handbook. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 10 parallel-group RCTs (639 participants). The mean age ranged from 41 to 74 years, and the proportion of male participants from 25% to 74%. Ethnicity was reported in five studies (Japanese (two), Caucasian/white (one), various ethnicities (two)). One study was multicentre and one multinational; the remainder were single-centre studies. Studies were conducted in Italy (two), Japan (two), and India, the United States and Latin America, Poland, Canada, and China (one each). SYNTHESIS OF
resultsThere were five comparisons in this review. For comparison 1 (SC-MIGS versus non-MIGS surgical options), there was no evidence of a short-term difference in medication-free participants (without phacoemulsification: risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.51; 1 study; low-certainty evidence; with phacoemulsification: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; I AUTHORS'
conclusionsThe available evidence is of low or very low certainty, and we are therefore able to draw only weak, uncertain conclusions about the effects of SC-MIGS. There may be little to no difference in the proportion of participants who are medication-free in the short, medium, or long term between SC-MIGS and non-MIGS surgical treatment. SC-MIGS may demonstrate a higher proportion of participants to be medication-free in the short term compared to phacoemulsification surgery alone; however, there may be a higher risk of bleeding. SC-MIGS may also be associated with a greater reduction in mean IOP compared to laser treatment.
fundingThis Cochrane review was supported by the National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, USA; Public Health Agency, UK; Queen's University Belfast, UK; National Institute for Health Research, UK until March 2023. REGISTRATION: Protocol (2022): doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015186.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.