Background: Glaucoma, a leading cause of blindness worldwide, can be managed surgically when medical treatments are insufficient. Trabecular meshwork (TM)-based micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) has emerged as a less invasive surgical approach to lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) and managing glaucoma. Methods: This narrative review synthesizes the scientific literature and trials on TM-based MIGS techniques, including trabecular micro-bypass stents, goniotomy and trabeculotomy procedures, electrocautery and laser-based approaches, and ab interno canaloplasty. Among these techniques, efficacy, pivotal clinical trials, medication reduction, safety profiles, complications, and determinants of surgical success were examined. Results: While all TM-based MIGS devices assessed achieved meaningful IOP reduction compared with trabeculectomies, there was no consensus on which TM-based MIGS technique yielded the best outcomes. TM-based MIGS had a good safety profile compared with traditional glaucoma surgeries. Common postoperative complications included transient hyphema, corneal edema, and anterior chamber inflammation. Ultimately, the success of TM-based MIGS procedures depended on many factors, including surgical technique, device type, and patient-specific factors. Conclusions: TM-based MIGS are an effective and safe surgical management option for eligible glaucoma patients requiring moderate IOP reduction. Future research should focus on the long-term outcomes of MIGS procedures, compare MIS devices, and explore the mechanistic and histopathological changes induced by MIGS.

To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) MRI parameters, including diffusion coefficient (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), and perfusion fraction (f), in predicting isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation status in adult diffuse glioma, and identify methodological factors underlying heterogeneity across the IVIM literature. Five databases were searched through 13 May 2026. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2. Per-study 2 × 2 tables were reconstructed where possible and pooled using a bivariate random-effects (Reitsma) model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Thirteen studies were included; nine contributed to at least one meta-analysis. For D (7 studies, 499 patients), pooled sensitivity was 0.808 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.735-0.864), specificity 0.762 (95% CI 0.696-0.817), and summary area under the curve (AUC) 0.849 (95% CI 0.804-0.884). All 13 studies had high Index Test risk of bias because thresholds were selected post hoc. B-value schemes, fitting methods, ROI definitions, and thresholds also varied substantially. D* (7 studies, AUC 0.727) and f (6 studies, AUC 0.764) were less accurate and more heterogeneous. Findings for f were directionally inconsistent. Certainty was low for D and very low for D* and f. D showed the most consistent accuracy among IVIM parameters. However, IVIM differences cannot be considered IDH-specific because tumour type and grade were confounded with molecular status. Low-certainty evidence and post hoc thresholds limit clinical translation. Evidence for D* and f remains limited. Standardization and prospective external validation are needed before clinical implementation.