Ophthopedia posts MIGS 2014–2024 review

1/ Ophthopedia flagged a new review of safety and complications in minimally invasive glaucoma surgery, or MIGS, covering studies published from 2014 through 2024. The paper itself was published in *Clinical Ophthalmology* on Jan. 6, 2026, and describes a PRISMA-based systematic review of peer-reviewed studies on major MIGS procedures. (dovepress.com) 2/ The review was led by Kevin Gillmann and co-authors from centers in Switzerland, France, the U.K. and Germany. In the paper’s introduction, the authors say MIGS is being used increasingly in mild-to-moderate glaucoma as earlier intervention is pursued to preserve visual function and quality of life. (dovepress.com) 3/ What the review set out to do was narrower than a general “MIGS works” claim. The authors said they focused on safety outcomes and complications across the main MIGS procedures published over the 2014–2024 period, as safety has become a central factor in procedure selection. (dovepress.com) 4/ That matters because MIGS is not one operation. It is a category that includes multiple devices and techniques, and the paper says comparative efficacy across those options remains debated even though many procedures lower intraocular pressure into the mid-teens in primary open-angle glaucoma. (dovepress.com) 5/ In practice, that makes a decade-spanning review useful as a map of complication profiles rather than a single verdict on the whole field. The paper’s framing, as available in the journal abstract and article page, is about procedure-specific safety signals and how those should be weighed when surgeons choose among MIGS options. (dovepress.com) 6/ One concrete sign the paper is being read closely: it has already drawn a published letter to the editor over how one complication was classified in a table. In that letter, Zoltan Z. Nagy, Iqbal K. Ahmed, Ticiana De Francesco and co-authors said the review misclassified a finding from the FLIGHT study as “hyphema” at 61.1%, when the original study reported transient blood reflux and zero hyphema. (tandfonline.com) 7/ The review authors responded in a separate item published May 20, 2026. Gillmann and colleagues said their manuscript body had already described the FLIGHT findings using the original study’s terms: blood reflux into the anterior chamber in 11 of 18 eyes, or 61.1%, within the first two postoperative hours, resolving by postoperative day one and without impact on vision. (dovepress.com) 8/ So the immediate takeaway is twofold. First, the review is now part of the MIGS safety discussion because it pulls together a decade of published evidence. Second, at least one table entry has already prompted a public correction dispute, which underscores how device-by-device complication reporting can shape how clinicians read comparative safety. That second point is an inference from the letter and response, not a statement made verbatim by the authors. (tandfonline.com) 9/ The paper remains available through *Clinical Ophthalmology*, with a video abstract also posted by the publisher. Ophthopedia’s post appears to be pointing readers to that review rather than announcing a new primary study conducted by Ophthopedia itself. (dovepress.com) 10/ If you’re reading the post as a clinician, resident, or medtech watcher, the cleanest way to use it is to separate three layers: the review’s broad safety synthesis, the device-specific complication tables, and any subsequent letters or responses that refine how individual findings are labeled. As of May 20, 2026, both the original review and the response to the FLIGHT-related letter are in the public record. (dovepress.com)