Randomized trial reveals low rates of elevated intraocular pressure after anterior segment surgery, indicating favorable safety of a novel cohesive ophthalmic viscosurgical device.
Purpose: To confirm the clinical safety and overall performance of Minivisc® Plus, a cohesive ophthalmic viscosurgical device (OVD). Setting: Multicenter study conducted at 6 sites in Sweden and Belgium. Design: Prospective, randomized, partially comparative, multicenter post market study. Methods: Subjects requiring anterior segment ophthalmic surgery were eligible for inclusion. The study consisted of two phases. In Phase A (90-day follow-up), a randomized comparison was conducted between Minivisc® Plus and Healon GV® Pro. In Phase B, eyes were treated with Minivisc® Plus and followed for 30 days. Primary endpoint was incidence of intraocular pressure (IOP) ≥30 mmHg at 7 days following operation. Secondary endpoints included postoperative inflammation, corneal endothelial cell density (ECD), surgeon-reported device performance, and the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and device deficiencies (DDs). Results: In total, 163 eyes were included in the study: 54 eyes in Phase A (25 eyes treated with Minivisc® Plus and 29 eyes treated with Healon GV® Pro) and 109 eyes in Phase B. All surgical procedures were phacoemulsification cataract surgeries, apart from two cases (both in Phase B), which were glaucoma surgeries. Two eyes (1.5%) treated with Minivisc® Plus exhibited intraocular pressure (IOP) ≥30 mmHg at postoperative day 7. Inflammation grading, ECD loss, and the incidence of AEs were comparable between the study substances throughout the 90-day follow-up period. Surgeon-reported assessments indicated comparable device performance between the two OVDs. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the safety of Minivisc® Plus in terms of IOP spikes, postoperative ocular inflammation, ECD loss, with clinical performance comparable to that of Healon GV® PRO.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vogt et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: