PreserFlo™ MicroShunt Versus Ab Externo Canaloplasty in Patients With Moderate to Advanced Open-Angle Glaucoma: 12-Month Follow-Up of a Single-Center Retrospective Study.

Purpose To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of the PreserFlo MicoShunt and the canaloplasty in patients with moderate to advanced glaucoma. Methods In this retrospective study, 300 patients with moderate to advanced glaucoma underwent either the implantation of the PreserFlo™ MicroShunt (group A) or a canaloplasty (group B). All patients underwent regular follow-up examinations in our department every two days, every two weeks, and every three, six, and 12 months postoperatively. Examinations included measurement of the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), slit-lamp biomicroscopy of the anterior and posterior segments, intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement using Goldmann applanation tonometry, visual field perimetry, and measurement of the endothelial cell density (ECD). Efficacy was shown by the absolute and qualified success rates calculated with the Kaplan-Meyer analysis. Results  In group A, IOP was significantly reduced at 12 months (13.37 ± 3.94 mmHg, p≤ 0.01) postoperatively in comparison to baseline (23.47 ± 8.39 mmHg). In group B, there was also a reduction in IOP at 12 months (14.32 ± 3.59 mmHg, p≤ 0.01) in comparison to the baseline (18.86 ± 5.82 mmHg). Comparing both groups, the IOP of patients who received the PreserFlo™ MicroShunt was significantly lower than the IOP of patients receiving canaloplasty after 12 months (p=0.049). Patients in both groups were treated with significantly fewer topical agents after 12 months (group A: baseline = 2.53±1.56; 12 months: 0.43 ± 0.83, p≤0.01; group B: baseline 2.62 ± 0.87; 12 months: 1.52 ± 0.99, p≤0.01). Patients receiving the PreserFlo™ MicroShunt applied significantly fewer topical agents than patients who underwent canaloplasty (p≤ 0.01). One year after surgery, the cumulative probability of absolute success was 81.33% in group A and 14.67% in group B. After one year, the cumulative probability of qualified success was 93.33% in group A and 82.00% in group B. Conclusion The PreserFlo™ as well as the canaloplasty offer many advantages and only a few disadvantages for patients with glaucoma. However, the respective patient's history and individual risk profile play an important role in the decision of the glaucoma specialist regarding the most appropriate surgical treatment for each patient. Patients with a high risk of conjunctival scarring and postoperative complications may benefit more from a canaloplasty, whereas patients who need a lower average IOP and show intolerance to any topical agents may require the PreserFlo™ implantation.