Ophthalmology Glaucoma publishes management data

Ophthalmology Glaucoma’s May/June 2026 issue packages several practice-facing studies into one place: how often glaucoma patients are actually getting visual field tests, how cataract surgery alone compares with cataract surgery plus two common trabecular MIGS options, and how socioeconomic status tracks with patients arriving for trabeculectomy. The issue is Volume 9, Issue 3 of the journal. The table of contents lists “Time to Identify Glaucoma Progression Given Typical Visual Field Testing in the United States,” “Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Cataract Surgery Alone vs. Combined with iStent Inject W or Kahook Dual Blade Glide: The Swedish Microinvasive Glaucoma Surgery Study,” and “The Association between Socioeconomic Status and Structural or Functional Baseline Measurements for Patients Receiving a Trabeculectomy.” ### How often are U.S. glaucoma patients actually getting visual field tests? A U.S. cohort study in the issue says typical visual field testing frequency is inadequate for most patients and can delay detection of glaucoma progression. The article’s summary states that patients in a nationwide insured population were not being tested often enough for timely identification of change. (ophthalmologyglaucoma.org) The May/June issue does not present that finding as a guideline update. It presents it as a measurement of real-world practice. That matters because visual field testing remains one of the main ways clinicians track functional loss over time, and the paper is framed around the gap between usual testing patterns and the time needed to detect progression. ### What exactly did the Swedish cataract-MIGS trial compare? (ophthalmologyglaucoma.org) The Swedish Microinvasive Glaucoma Surgery Study compared cataract surgery alone with cataract surgery combined with iStent Inject W or Kahook Dual Blade Glide, according to the article listing and abstract summary. The study reports 12-month outcomes and is described as a randomized controlled trial. The head-to-head design stands out because it puts two commonly discussed trabecular MIGS approaches into the same randomized comparison against phacoemulsification alone, rather than relying only on separate device studies or retrospective series. (ophthalmologyglaucoma.org) The journal listing identifies the procedures by name and places the trial in the current issue’s research lineup. ### Why does that trial matter for cataract and glaucoma planning? (ophthalmologyglaucoma.org) Prior ophthalmology literature has often compared a single MIGS device plus cataract surgery against cataract surgery alone, or pooled different trabecular procedures in reviews. The Swedish trial adds a direct randomized comparison involving iStent Inject W and Kahook Dual Blade Glide in the same study framework. That does not settle every device choice. (ophthalmologyglaucoma.org) But it gives surgeons a cleaner same-study comparison when discussing whether to add a trabecular procedure at the time of cataract surgery in mild-to-moderate glaucoma, which is how the journal abstract frames the question. ### What does the trabeculectomy paper add? The May/June issue also includes a study titled “The Association between Socioeconomic Status and Structural or Functional Baseline Measurements for Patients Receiving a Trabeculectomy.” The article listing indicates the paper examines socioeconomic status alongside baseline structural or functional measurements in patients who went on to surgery. (aaojournal.org) The journal listing does not, by itself, provide a full outcome narrative. (ophthalmologyglaucoma.org) But it does show that the paper is focused on who reaches trabeculectomy and what their disease measurements look like at baseline, rather than on a new device or drug. ### What else is in the same issue? Volume 9, Issue 3 also includes work on long-term outcomes of nonvalved glaucoma drainage devices in uveitic glaucoma and glaucoma management in Sturge-Weber syndrome using a Delphi process. (sciencedirect.com) Those articles appear alongside the testing-frequency, MIGS, and trabeculectomy papers in the same issue listing. The May/June 2026 issue is available through Ophthalmology Glaucoma’s issue page, where the full-text and article records for the Swedish MIGS trial, the visual field testing study, and the trabeculectomy socioeconomic analysis are listed. (sciencedirect.com) (ophthalmologyglaucoma.org)