XEN
Bleb revision
Glaucoma
Uveitis
XEN® implant
Journal
Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie
ISSN: 1435-702X
Titre abrégé: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8205248
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Oct 2023
19 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
03
02
2023
accepted:
08
09
2023
revised:
22
08
2023
medline:
19
10
2023
pubmed:
19
10
2023
entrez:
19
10
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To evaluate the efficacy of XEN Retrospective analysis of 25 eyes receiving XEN Mean preoperative IOP was 35.3 ± 10.9 mmHg on 2.9 ± 0.9 topical antiglaucomatous agents. 19 of 25 patients (76%) received additional oral acetazolamide. 19 eyes were pseudophakic, 5 eyes phakic and 1 aphakic. Early postoperatively, mean IOP reduced to 7.7 ± 3.0 mmHg (75.8% reduction). At final follow-up (mean 17.7 months) mean IOP was 12.0 ± 3.8 mmHg (62.5% reduction) on 0.2 ± 0.6 medications. Six eyes (24%) required bleb revision at mean 28 weeks and therefore were categorized as failure. One eye failed despite bleb revision and restart of topical ocular hypotensive medication. Three other eyes (12%) had IOP spikes with uveitis flare-ups. Transient hypotony complications occurred in 32%. At final follow-up, 18 eyes (72%) achieved complete success and one eye (4%) qualified success. The XEN
Identifiants
pubmed: 37855957
doi: 10.1007/s00417-023-06254-3
pii: 10.1007/s00417-023-06254-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Lewis RA (2014) Ab interno approach to the subconjunctival space using a collagen glaucoma stent. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:1301–1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.01.032
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.01.032
pubmed: 24943904
Galal A, Bilgic A, Eltanamly R, Osman A (2017) XEN Glaucoma implant with Mitomycin C 1-Year Follow-Up: Result and complications. J Ophthalmol 2017:5457246. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5457246
doi: 10.1155/2017/5457246
pubmed: 28348884
pmcid: 5350531
Tan SZ, Walkden A, Au L (2018) One-year result of XEN45 implant for glaucoma: efficacy, safety, and postoperative management. Eye (Lond) 32:324–332. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2017.162
doi: 10.1038/eye.2017.162
pubmed: 28862254
Reitsamer H, Sng C, Vera V et al (2019) Two-year results of a multicenter study of the ab interno gelatin implant in medically uncontrolled primary open-angle glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 257:983–996. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-019-04251-z
doi: 10.1007/s00417-019-04251-z
pubmed: 30758653
Reitsamer H, Vera V, Ruben S et al (2022) Three-year effectiveness and safety of the XEN gel stent as a solo procedure or in combination with phacoemulsification in open-angle glaucoma: a multicentre study. Acta Ophthalmol 100:e233–e245. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.14886
doi: 10.1111/aos.14886
pubmed: 33973370
Lenzhofer M, Kersten-Gomez I, Sheybani A et al (2019) Four-year results of a minimally invasive transscleral glaucoma gel stent implantation in a prospective multi-centre study. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 47:581–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.13463
doi: 10.1111/ceo.13463
pubmed: 30578661
pmcid: 6767491
Schargus M, Theilig T, Rehak M et al (2020) Outcome of a single XEN microstent implant for glaucoma patients with different types of glaucoma. BMC Ophthalmol 20:490. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-020-01764-8
doi: 10.1186/s12886-020-01764-8
pubmed: 33334311
pmcid: 7745382
Sng CC, Wang J, Hau S et al (2018) XEN-45 collagen implant for the treatment of uveitic glaucoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 46:339–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.13087
doi: 10.1111/ceo.13087
pubmed: 29053204
Qureshi A, Jones NP, Au L (2019) Urgent management of secondary Glaucoma in Uveitis Using the Xen-45 Gel Stent. J Glaucoma 28:1061–1066. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001389
doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001389
pubmed: 31633616
Anton A, Heinzelmann S, Neß T et al (2015) Trabeculectomy ab interno with the Trabectome® as a therapeutic option for uveitic secondary glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 253:1973–1978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-015-3102-3
doi: 10.1007/s00417-015-3102-3
pubmed: 26205735
Pahlitzsch M, Torun N, Gonnermann J et al (2015) Trabeculectomy ab interno (trabectome): yet another possibility in the treatment of uncontrolled glaucomatocyclitic crisis under systemic valganciclovir therapy? Eye (Lond) 29:1335–1339. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.112
doi: 10.1038/eye.2015.112
pubmed: 26139050
Swamy R, Francis BA, Akil H et al (2020) Clinical results of ab interno trabeculotomy using the trabectome in patients with uveitic glaucoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 48:31–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.13639
doi: 10.1111/ceo.13639
pubmed: 31505089
Kiessling D, Rennings C, Hild M et al (2021) Impact of failed ab-interno trabeculectomy (trabectome) on subsequent XEN45 gel stent implantation in pseudophakic eyes. Int Ophthalmol 41:4047–4053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-01977-w
doi: 10.1007/s10792-021-01977-w
pubmed: 34365554
pmcid: 8572817
Ceballos EM, Beck AD, Lynn MJ (2002) Trabeculectomy with antiproliferative agents in uveitic glaucoma. J Glaucoma 11:189–196. https://doi.org/10.1097/00061198-200206000-00005
doi: 10.1097/00061198-200206000-00005
pubmed: 12140394
Towler HM, McCluskey P, Shaer B, Lightman S (2000) Long-term follow-up of trabeculectomy with intraoperative 5-fluorouracil for uveitis-related glaucoma. Ophthalmology 107:1822–1828. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00351-1
doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00351-1
pubmed: 11013180
Stavrou P, Murray PI (1999) Long-term follow-up of trabeculectomy without antimetabolites in patients with uveitis. Am J Ophthalmol 128:434–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9394(99)00185-3
doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(99)00185-3
pubmed: 10577584
Noble J, Derzko-Dzulynsky L, Rabinovitch T, Birt C (2007) Outcome of trabeculectomy with intraoperative mitomycin C for uveitic glaucoma. Can J Ophthalmol 42:89–94. https://doi.org/10.3129/canjophthalmol.06-124
doi: 10.3129/canjophthalmol.06-124
pubmed: 17361247
Wagner FM, Schuster AK, Munder A et al (2022) Comparison of subconjunctival microinvasive glaucoma surgery and trabeculectomy. Acta Ophthalmol 100:e1120–e1126. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.15042
doi: 10.1111/aos.15042
pubmed: 34626093
Theilig T, Rehak M, Busch C et al (2020) Comparing the efficacy of trabeculectomy and XEN gel microstent implantation for the treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma: a retrospective monocentric comparative cohort study. Sci Rep 10:19337. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76551-y
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76551-y
pubmed: 33168873
pmcid: 7653954
Teus MA, Paz Moreno-Arrones J, Castaño B et al (2019) Optical coherence tomography analysis of filtering blebs after long-term, functioning trabeculectomy and XEN® stent implant. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 257:1005–1011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-019-04272-8
doi: 10.1007/s00417-019-04272-8
pubmed: 30783784
Bui TT, Rosdahl JA (2022) Systematic review of MIGS and Non-penetrating glaucoma procedures for uveitic glaucoma. Seminophthalmol 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2022.2102927
Schargus M, Busch C, Rehak M et al (2021) Functional monitoring after Trabeculectomy or XEN Microstent implantation using spectral domain optical coherence tomography and visual field indices—A retrospective comparative cohort study. Biology 10:273. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10040273
doi: 10.3390/biology10040273
pubmed: 33801601
pmcid: 8065996
Schlenker MB, Gulamhusein H, Conrad-Hengerer I et al (2017) Efficacy, safety, and risk factors for failure of standalone ab Interno gelatin Microstent implantation versus standalone Trabeculectomy. Ophthalmology 124:1579–1588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.05.004
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.05.004
pubmed: 28601250
Marcos Parra MT, Salinas López JA, López Grau NS et al (2019) XEN implant device versus trabeculectomy, either alone or in combination with phacoemulsification, in open-angle glaucoma patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 257:1741–1750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-019-04341-y
doi: 10.1007/s00417-019-04341-y
pubmed: 31093766
Marolo P, Reibaldi M, Fallico M et al (2022) Reintervention rate in glaucoma filtering surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Ophthalmol 32:2515–2531. https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721221093828
doi: 10.1177/11206721221093828
pubmed: 35473447
Widder RA, Dietlein TS, Dinslage S et al (2018) The XEN45 Gel Stent as a minimally invasive procedure in glaucoma surgery: success rates, risk profile, and rates of re-surgery after 261 surgeries. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 256:765–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-3899-7
doi: 10.1007/s00417-018-3899-7
pubmed: 29356886
Basílio AL, Moura-Coelho N, Passos I et al (2018) XEN® implant and trabeculectomy medium-term quality of life assessment and comparison of results. Int J Ophthalmol 11:1941–1944. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2018.12.11
doi: 10.18240/ijo.2018.12.11
pubmed: 30588427
pmcid: 6288541
Triolo G, Wang J, Aguilar-Munoa S et al (2022) Preserflo microshunt implant for the treatment of refractory uveitic glaucoma: 36-month outcomes. Eye. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-022-02368-w
doi: 10.1038/s41433-022-02368-w
pubmed: 36577805
Chhabra R, Tan SZ, Au L et al (2019) Long-term outcomes and complications of Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implants in adults with glaucoma secondary to uveitis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 27:1322–1329. https://doi.org/10.1080/09273948.2018.1517892
doi: 10.1080/09273948.2018.1517892
pubmed: 30212278
Ramdas WD, Pals J, Rothova A, Wolfs RCW (2019) Efficacy of glaucoma drainage devices in uveitic glaucoma and a meta-analysis of the literature. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 257:143–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-4156-9
doi: 10.1007/s00417-018-4156-9
pubmed: 30310971
Ventura-Abreu N, Mendes-Pereira J, Pazos M et al (2021) Surgical approach and outcomes of uveitic glaucoma in a tertiary hospital. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 15:52–57. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1306
doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1306
pubmed: 34720493
pmcid: 8543743
Cazana IM, Böhringer D, Reinhard T, et al (2022) A comparison of long-term results after Baerveldt 250 implantation in advanced uveitic vs. other forms of glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-022-05612-x
Sinha S, Ganjei AY, McWatters Z et al (2020) Ahmed versus baerveldt glaucoma drainage device in uveitic glaucoma: A retrospective comparative study. J Glaucoma 29:750–755. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001583
doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001583
pubmed: 32590449
Schoelles KJ, Anton A, Auw-Haedrich C (2020) Chronic granulomatous inflammation after CyPass® implantation. Ocul Oncol Pathol 6:259–264. https://doi.org/10.1159/000505491
doi: 10.1159/000505491
pubmed: 33005615
pmcid: 7506250
Habbe KJ, Kohlhaas M, Langwieder C, Fili S (2022) Foreign body reaction after CyPass® Micro-Stent implantation: a case series. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-022-05767-7
doi: 10.1007/s00417-022-05767-7
pubmed: 35982248
Matsushita K, Kawashima R, Kawasaki R, Nishida K (2021) Prognostic factors for successful Baerveldt glaucoma implant surgery for refractory glaucoma after multiple surgeries. Jpn J Ophthalmol 65:820–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-021-00864-2
doi: 10.1007/s10384-021-00864-2
pubmed: 34374907