Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery: Safety of Individual Devices

Primary open-angle glaucoma progression in those already on maximal medical therapy has traditionally been treated with trabeculectomy, a surgical procedure that carries a high degree of morbidity. In the last few decades, significant advances have been made in the field of minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) devices, which aim to defer or prevent trabeculectomy via less arduous surgical techniques in certain types of glaucoma. Although reviews have been published examining the efficacy of various MIGS techniques, no article synthesises the comparative safety of all available devices. We performed a literature review examining the safety of MIGS devices. Fifteen devices were included, variously attempting to increase aqueous outflow through the trabecular meshwork or the suprachoroidal space, shunting into the subconjunctival space, or reducing aqueous production through ciliary body ablation. Notably, the earliest product attempting to increase outflow to the suprachoroidal space, Alcon’s CyPass Micro-Stent, was withdrawn from the market due to concerns regarding increased corneal endothelial cell loss at five years post-implantation. All other devices were described as well-tolerated, with the most common adverse effects including hyphaema, intraocular pressure spikes, and device migration or obstruction. MIGS devices are purported to be uniformly safe, and many studies report no statistically significant increased complications beyond those associated with cataract surgery alone. It is important to note, however, the generally poor quality of current studies, with a dearth of randomised, or even prospective, data, and a large proportion of studies funded by device producers