The current 8-mm version of the Hydrus Microstent (Ivantis, Inc.) is relatively shorter in length and lower in profile compared with the previous version, which was 15 mm long and nearly circular in profile (
Fig. 3). The earlier design of the microstent has been shown to improve the outflow facility in a similar study design.
20 Camras et al.
20 reported an increase in outflow facility from 0.19 ± 0.02 to 0.39 ± 0.07 μL/min/mm Hg (mean ± SEM,
n = 9) using the 15-mm version of the microstent. This is compared with an increase in outflow facility from 0.34 ± 0.17 μL/min/mm Hg to 0.52 ± 0.19 μL/min/mm Hg (mean ± SD,
n = 24) seen in this study. There is an obvious difference in the baselines encountered in the two studies, which significantly limits the direct comparison between the two designs. Standardized mean difference (between pre and post microstent insertion means) can be calculated using Hedge's unbiased
g for the two studies. For outflow facility, the treatment effect size was
g = 1.23 (95% CI 1.16–1.31) with the 15-mm microstent and
g = 0.98 (95% CI 0.93–1.03) with the 8-mm microstent. For outflow resistance, the 15-mm microstent had an effect size of
g = 1.62 (95% CI 0.63–2.60) compared with the 8-mm microstent, which had an effect size of
g = 0.89 (95% CI 0.25–1.53). Even though the “effect size” is higher for outflow facility with the 15-mm microstent, this can be due to lower baseline outflow facility seen in the 15-mm microstent study. A very strong linear correlation seen between the baseline outflow resistance and change in outflow resistance with microstent implantation provides justification for extrapolating the associated trend lines for comparative purposes. A comparison between these trend lines is shown in
Figure 9. The trend lines and data distribution show significant overlap without any significant difference in either the slope (
P = 0.43) or the intercept (
P = 0.20) of the two trend lines. This analysis, with its limitations, does suggest that there is likely no significant difference in the efficacy of the 8-mm microstent as compared with its prior 15-mm version. One possible explanation is that although the 15-mm microstent may in theory reach more collector channels, its more circular profile contacts significantly more of the back wall of SC, thereby potentially obstructing some of the collector channels. A future morphological study is needed to confirm or refute this possibility.