Comparison of Safety and Efficacy of Hydrus and iStent Combined with Phacoemulsyfication in Open Angle Glaucoma Patients: 24-Month Follow-Up

Abstract

The paper presents the results of a 24-month-long observation comparing the effectiveness and safety of two micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) devices: Hydrus Microstent and iStent Trabecular Bypass in combination with cataract phacoemulsification in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma. We also analyzed the impact of preoperative factors on achieving surgical success in both surgical methods. The prospective, comparative, non-randomized study included 65 glaucoma surgeries. In 35 patients (53.8%), an iStent implant procedure was performed, while 30 patients (46.2%) underwent a Hydrus implant procedure. The demographic data was similar in both treatment groups. At 24 months after surgery, the mean IOP in the iStent group was 15.9 ± 3.0 mmHg and in the Hydrus group 16.2 ± 1.8 mmHg. The difference between the mean iStent vs Hydrus after two years of treatment was −0.3 (p = 0.683). At the 24 month follow-up, the average change in the number of antiglaucoma medications used was 71.7% in the iStent group and 79.6% in the Hydrus group. The difference in mean percentage change between groups was 7.9% in favor of Hydrus. Patients under the age of 70 may benefit from a greater risk reduction in the Hydrus group (HR = 0.81), while those over the age of 70 may benefit from a risk reduction in the iStent group (HR = 1.33). IOP cases with >18 mmHg before the surgery have a better chance of surgical success with the Hydrus method (HR = 0.28), and with IOP < 18 mmHg in the iStent group (HR = 1.93). Cases with more drugs (≥3 drugs) are more favorable in the Hydrus group (HR = 0.23), while those with a maximum of two drugs have a better prognosis in the iStent group (HR = 2.23). The most common postoperative complication was the presence of erythrocytes in the anterior chamber (AC), found in 40.0% of operated eyes in the Hydrus group. The profile of observed complications and significant improvement in visual acuity allows us to consider both implants as a safe way of treating patients with early or moderate glaucoma and co-existing cataracts.