Comparing the safety and efficacy of Preserflo Microshunt implantation and trabeculectomy for glaucoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To compare the safety and efficacy of the Preserflo Microshunt with trabeculectomy in the treatment of patients with glaucoma. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. The primary outcome measures recorded as a measure of efficacy of the interventions were intra-ocular pressure (IOP) at final follow-up and IOP reduction (IOPR). Secondary outcomes recorded to measure efficacy were reduction in the number of glaucoma medications and reinterventions. To assess safety profile, the proportions of patients with post-operative complications were recorded. Seven articles were included in this study. A total of 1353 eyes were included in this review (Preserflo: 812, trabeculectomy: 541). Post-operative IOP (mean difference [MD] = 0.78 [0.66, 0.90], p < 0.001) results are significantly lower for trabeculectomy than Preserflo. The IOPR (MD = -1.20 [-2.30, -0.09], p = 0.034) results significantly favour trabeculectomy over Preserflo Microshunt. The reduction in topical glaucoma medications (MD = -0.32 [-0.58, -0.07], p = 0.014) is significantly higher for trabeculectomy. There is no statistically significant difference in levels of hypotony (risk ratio [RR] = -0.05 [-0.47, 0.37], p = 0.806), choroidal effusion/detachment (RR = -0.12 [-0.42, 0.19], p = 0.444), hyphaema (RR = 0.20 [-0.11, 0.51], p = 0.216) and flat anterior chamber (RR = 0.49 [-1.02, 0.03], p = 0.066). There are significantly more bleb-related complications in the trabeculectomy groups than Preserflo groups (RR = -0.63 [-1.01, -0.24], p = 0.001). There were statistically more reinterventions required in the trabeculectomy groups than Preserflo groups (RR = -0.48 [-0.65, -0.30], p < 0.001). Compared to trabeculectomy, the Preserflo Microshunt is not as effective in lowering intra-ocular pressure, has a similar safety profile and has a lower reintervention rate. Further research is required given the lack of randomised controlled trials within this study and resulting low strength of evidence.
(© 2024 The Authors. Acta Ophthalmologica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation.)