Search

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness and adverse event profile of standalone polystyrene-isobutylene-styrene (SIBS) microshunt implantation with adjunct mitomycin C (MMC) 0.2 mg/ml and MMC 0.4 mg/ml., Design: Mega-analysis using individual patient data from international prospective and retrospective clinical studies., Participants: Patients with glaucoma who underwent implantation of a SIBS microshunt with MMC as a standalone procedure., Methods: A comparison of eyes that received MMC 0.2 mg/ml or 0.4 mg/ml., Main Outcomes Measures: Primary outcome was complete success defined as the proportion of eyes at 1 year with all of the following: (1) no 2 consecutive intraocular pressures (IOPs) > 17 mmHg; (2) no clinical hypotony; (3) ≥ 20% IOP reduction from baseline; and (4) no use of glaucoma medications. Secondary outcomes included IOP thresholds of 12 mmHg, 14 mm Hg, and 21 mmHg, median IOP, number of medications, risk factors for failure, interventions, adverse events, and reoperations., Results: At 1 year, the complete success rate was significantly higher (71.3% vs. 50.46%; P < 0.001) and the median IOP was significantly lower (13.0 vs 14.2 mmHg; P < 0.05) in the MMC 0.4 mg/ml group. Mitomycin C 0.2 mg/ml was found to be a significant risk factor for failure (hazard ratio 1.75; 95% confidence interval 1.14-2.67). Needling and surgical revision occurred at a lower rate in the MMC 0.4 mg/ml group (7% vs 18.8%; P = 0.002 and 4.3% vs 13.7% P = 0.0087, respectively). Adverse events occurred at a similar frequency in both groups (26.6% MMC 0.2 mg/ml vs 29.6% MMC 0.4 mg/ml; P = 0.46), most of which were early and transient., Conclusion: Polystyrene-isobutylene-styrene microshunt implantation with MMC 0.4 mg/ml resulted in a higher success rate with greater IOP reduction compared with MMC 0.2 mg/ml. Higher MMC concentration was not associated with increased serious adverse events., Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Sex-based research in medicine has revealed inequities against females on almost every metric at almost every career stage; ophthalmology is no exception., Objective: To systematically review the experiences of females in ophthalmology (FiO) from training through practice in high-income countries (HICs)., Evidence Review: A systematic review of English-language studies, published between January 1990 and May 2022, relating to FiO in HICs was performed. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase electronic databases were searched, as well as the Journal of Academic Ophthalmology as it was not indexed in the searched databases. Studies were organized by theme at each career stage, starting in medical school when an interest in ophthalmology is expressed, and extending up to retirement., Findings: A total of 91 studies, 87 cross-sectional and 4 cohort, were included. In medical school, mentorship and recruitment of female students into ophthalmology was influenced by sex bias, with fewer females identifying with ophthalmologist mentors and gender stereotypes perpetuated in reference letters written by both male and female referees. In residency, females had unequal learning opportunities, with lower surgical case volumes than male trainees and fewer females pursued fellowships in lucrative subspecialties. In practice, female ophthalmologists had lower incomes, less academic success, and poorer representation in leadership roles. Female ophthalmologists had a greater scholarly impact factor than their male counterparts, but this was only after approximately 30 years of publication experience. Pervasive throughout all stages of training and practice was the experience of greater sexual harassment among females from both patients and colleagues. Despite these disparities, some studies found that females reported equal overall career satisfaction rating with males in ophthalmology, whereas others suggested higher burnout rates., Conclusions and Relevance: Ophthalmology is approaching sex parity, however, the increase in the proportion of females in ophthalmology had not translated to an increase in female representation in leadership positions. Sex disparities persisted across many domains including recruitment, training, practice patterns, academic productivity, and income. Interventions may improve sex equity in the field.