Two-Year Results of XEN Gel Stent Implantation for Pseudoexfoliative Glaucoma in Phakic versus Pseudophakic Eyes
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Study Participants
3.2. Effectiveness
3.3. Postoperative Complications and Interventions
3.4. Postoperative Bleb Interventions and the Need for Additional Surgery
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kornmann, H.L.; Gedde, S.J. Surgical management of pseudoexfoliation glaucoma. Int. Ophthalmol. Clin. 2014, 54, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Drolsum, L.; Ringvold, A.; Nicolaissen, B. Cataract and glaucoma surgery in pseudoexfoliation syndrome: A review. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 2007, 85, 810–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Damji, K.F.; Konstas, A.G.; Liebmann, J.M.; Hodge, W.G.; Ziakas, N.G.; Giannikakis, S.; Mintsioulis, G.; Merkur, A.; Pan, Y.; Ritch, R. Intraocular pressure following phacoemulsification in patients with and without exfoliation syndrome: A 2 year prospective study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2006, 90, 1014–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shingleton, B.J.; Wooler, K.B.; Bourne, C.I.; O’Donoghue, M.W. Combined cataract and trabeculectomy surgery in eyes with pseudoexfoliation glaucoma. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2011, 37, 1961–1970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fontana, L.; Coassin, M.; Iovieno, A.; Moramarco, A.; Cimino, L. Cataract surgery in patients with pseudoex-foliation syndrome: Current updates. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2017, 11, 1377–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vazquez-Ferreiro, P.; Carrera-Hueso, F.J.; Fikri-Benbrahim, N.; Barreiro-Rodriguez, L.; Diaz-Rey, M.; Ramón Barrios, M.A. Intraocular lens dislocation in pseudoexfoliation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017, 95, e164–e169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, F.; Tang, G.; Zhang, H.; Yan, X.; Ma, L.; Geng, Y. The Effects of Trabeculectomy on Pseudoexfoliation Glaucoma and Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma. J. Ophthalmol. 2020, 2020, 1723691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lim, S.H.; Cha, S.C. Long-term Outcomes of Mitomycin-C Trabeculectomy in Exfoliative Glaucoma Versus Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma. J. Glaucoma 2017, 26, 303–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ehrnrooth, P.; Lehto, I.; Puska, P.; Laatikainen, L. Long-term outcome of trabeculectomy in terms of intraocular pressure. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 2002, 80, 267–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takihara, Y.; Inatani, M.; Ogata-Iwao, M.; Kawai, M.; Inoue, T.; Iwao, K.; Tanihara, H. Trabeculectomy for open-angle glaucoma in phakic eyes vs. in pseudophakic eyes after phacoemulsification: A prospective clinical cohort study. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014, 132, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takihara, Y.; Inatani, M.; Seto, T.; Iwao, K.; Iwao, M.; Inoue, T.; Kasaoka, N.; Murakami, A.; Futa, R.; Tanihara, H. Trabeculectomy with mitomycin for open-angle glaucoma in phakic vs. pseudophakic eyes after phacoemulsification. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2011, 129, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Supawavej, C.; Nouri-Mahdavi, K.; Law, S.K.; Caprioli, J. Comparison of results of initial trabeculectomy with mitomycin C after prior clear-corneal phacoemulsification to outcomes in phakic eyes. J. Glaucoma 2013, 22, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Torres-Costa, S.; Melo, A.B.; Estrela-Silva, S.; Falcão-Reis, F.; Barbosa-Breda, J. Effect of Prior Phacoemulsification Surgery in Trabeculectomy Surgery Outcomes. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2022, 16, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gu, W.; Jeong, S.; Cha, S. The Long-term Outcomes of Mitomycin C Trabeculectomy of Phakic versus Pseudophakic Eyes of Patients with Exfoliative Glaucoma. J. Korean Ophthalmol. Soc. 2021, 62, 812–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlenker, M.B.; Gulamhusein, H.; Conrad-Hengerer, I.; Somers, A.; Lenzhofer, M.; Stalmans, I.; Reitsamer, H.; Hengerer, F.H.; Ahmed, I.I.K. Efficacy, Safety, and Risk Factors for Failure of Standalone Ab Interno Gelatin Microstent Implantation versus Standalone Trabeculectomy. Ophthalmology 2017, 124, 1579–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wagner, F.M.; Schuster, A.K.; Emmerich, J.; Chronopoulos, P.; Hoffmann, E.M. Efficacy and safety of XEN®-Implantation vs. trabeculectomy: Data of a “real-world” setting. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0231614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gillmann, K.; Bravetti, G.E.; Mermoud, A.; Rao, H.L.; Mansouri, K. XEN Gel Stent in Pseudoexfoliative Glaucoma: 2-Year Results of a Prospective Evaluation. J. Glaucoma 2019, 28, 676–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gillmann, K.; Bravetti, G.E.; Rao, H.L.; Mermoud, A.; Mansouri, K. Combined and stand-alone XEN 45 gel stent implantation: 3-year outcomes and success predictors. Acta Ophthalmol. 2021, 99, e531–e539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fea, A.M.; Bron, A.M.; Economou, M.A.; Laffi, G.; Martini, E.; Figus, M.; Oddone, F. European study of the efficacy of a cross-linked gel stent for the treatment of glaucoma. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2020, 46, 441–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faber, H.; Guggenberger, V.; Voykov, B. XEN45 Gelstent Implantation in the Treatment of Glaucoma Secondary to Fuchs Uveitis Syndrome. Ocul. Immunol. Inflamm. 2022, 30, 1678–1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaarawy, T.; Sheerwood, M.B.; Grehn, F. Guidelines on Design and Reporting of Glaucoma Surgical Trials; Kugler Publications: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Widder, R.A.; Dietlein, T.S.; Dinslage, S.; Kühnrich, P.; Rennings, C.; Rössler, G. 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. 2018, 256, 765–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tan, S.Z.; Walkden, A.; Au, L. One-year result of XEN45 implant for glaucoma: Efficacy, safety, and postoperative management. Eye 2018, 32, 324–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Inoue, T.; Kawaji, T.; Inatani, M.; Kameda, T.; Yoshimura, N.; Tanihara, H. Simultaneous increases in multiple proinflammatory cytokines in the aqueous humor in pseudophakic glaucomatous eyes. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2012, 38, 1389–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, X.; Zhao, Y.; Zhong, Y.; Duan, X. The efficacy of XEN gel stent implantation in glaucoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmol. 2022, 22, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dabrowska-Kloda, K.; Kloda, T.; Boudiaf, S.; Jakobsson, G.; Stenevi, U. Incidence and risk factors of late in-the-bag intraocular lens dislocation: Evaluation of 140 eyes between 1992 and 2012. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2015, 41, 1376–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pose-Bazarra, S.; López-Valladares, M.J.; López-de-Ullibarri, I.; Azuara-Blanco, A. Feasibility, efficacy and safety of early lens extraction in patients with pseudoexfoliation glaucoma: A feasibility and pilot study. Eye 2023, 37, 1878–1884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- AGIS. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 11. Risk factors for failure of trabeculectomy and argon laser trabeculoplasty. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2002, 134, 481–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Landers, J.; Martin, K.; Sarkies, N.; Bourne, R.; Watson, P. A twenty-year follow-up study of trabeculectomy: Risk factors and outcomes. Ophthalmology 2012, 119, 694–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Midha, N.; Rao, H.L.; Mermoud, A.; Mansouri, K. Identifying the predictors of needling after XEN gel implant. Eye 2019, 33, 353–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henry, J.C.; Krupin, T.; Schmitt, M.; Lauffer, J.; Miller, E.; Ewing, M.Q.; Scheie, H.G. Long-term follow-up of pseudoexfoliation and the development of elevated intraocular pressure. Ophthalmology 1987, 94, 545–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Characteristic | Phakic (n = 30) | Pseudophakic (n = 55) | p |
---|---|---|---|
Median age in years (IQR) | 67 (60–71) | 77 (73–81) | <0.0001 1 |
Female sex (%) | n = 14 (47%) | n = 34 (62%) | 0.1782 2 |
White ethnicity (%) | n = 30 (100%) | n = 55 (100%) | |
Median preoperative medicated IOP in mmHg (IQR) | 29 (26–35) | 30 (25–37) | 0.6752 1 |
Median number of preoperative medications (IQR) | 3 (3–4) | 4 (3–4) | 0.4170 1 |
Mean preoperative visual field ± SD (MD in dB) | −9 ± 5.6 | −10 ± 5.6 | 0.4651 3 |
MD ≥ −6.0 dB (% of eyes) | 26% | 31% | |
MD < −6.0 dB and ≥−12.0 dB (% of eyes) | 38% | 38% | |
MD < −12.0 dB (% of eyes) | 36% | 31% | |
Ophthalmological comorbidity | |||
Epiretinal membrane | n = 2 (7%) | n = 2 (4%) | 0.5284 2 |
Secondary IOL implantation | Not applicable | n = 2 (4%) | |
Previous glaucoma interventions | |||
None | n = 18 (60%) | n = 33 (60%) | 1.0 |
SLT/ALT | n = 8 (27%) | n = 13 (24%) | 0.7569 2 |
Laser peripheral iridotomy | n = 0 | n = 1 (2%) | 0.4575 2 |
CPC | n = 0 | n = 3 (5%) | 0.1928 2 |
Canaloplasty | n = 4 (13%) | n = 4 (7%) | 0.3605 2 |
Observed Complication | Phakic (n = 30) | Pseudophakic (n = 55) | p |
---|---|---|---|
Postoperative hyphaema | n = 7 (23%) | n = 14 (25%) | 0.8258 |
Injection of viscoelastic | n = 3 (10%) | n = 10 (18%); (n = 5 twice) | 0.3166 |
Early hypotony (<1 month post-surgery) | n = 0 | n = 2 (4%) | 0.2905 |
Sustained hypotony (>3 months post-surgery) | n = 0 | n = 0 | |
Stent occlusion (spontaneous resolution) | n = 1 (3%) | n = 1 (2%) | 0.6596 |
Conjunctiva dehiscence requiring suturing | n = 1 (3%) | n = 0 | 0.1732 |
Iris incarceration in the stent | n = 0 | n = 1 (2%) | 0.4575 |
Malignant glaucoma | n = 0 | n = 1 (2%) | 0.4575 |
Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment | n = 1 (3%) | n = 0 | 0.1732 |
Spontaneous IOL dislocation | Not applicable | n = 1 (2%) | |
UGH syndrome | Not applicable | n = 3 (5%) | |
Subsequent IOL removal | n = 2 (4%) | ||
Cataract with BCVA loss ≥2 lines | n = 4 (13%) | Not Applicable | |
Cataract surgery | n = 4 (13%) | Not applicable | |
Late bleb leak | n = 0 | n = 0 | |
Blebitis, endophthalmitis | n = 0 | n = 1 (2%) | 0.4575 |
Loss of light perception (following blebitis) | n = 0 | n = 1 (2%) | 0.4575 |
Phakic (n = 30) | Pseudophakic (n = 55) | p | |
---|---|---|---|
No bleb intervention | n = 13 (43%) | n = 24 (44%) | 0.9785 |
Number of needlings with MMC per eye: | |||
≥1 | n = 17 (57%) | n = 31 (56%) | 0.9785 |
1 | n = 7 (23%) | n = 16 (29%) | 0.5680 |
2 | n = 6 (20%) | n = 12 (22%) | 0.8446 |
3 | n = 2 (7%) | n = 2 (4%) | 0.5284 |
4 | n = 2 (7%) | n = 1 (2%) | 0.2470 |
Number of incisional bleb revisions per eye: | |||
0 | n = 25 (87%) | n = 51 (93%) | 0.1786 |
1 | n = 4 (13%) | n = 4 (7%) | 0.1786 |
2 | n = 1 (3%) | n = 0 | 0.1732 |
Additional glaucoma surgery | |||
No additional glaucoma surgery | n = 30 (100%) | n = 46 (84%) | 0.0191 |
XEN-45 implantation | n = 0 | n = 4 (7%) | 0.1392 |
PreserFlo MicroShunt | n = 0 | n = 2 (4%) | 0.2905 |
Trabeculectomy | n = 0 | n = 3 (5%) | 0.1928 |
Other surgery | |||
Cataract surgery | n = 4 (13%) | Not applicable | |
IOL removal | n = 0 | n = 2 (4%) | |
Vitrectomy | n = 0 | n = 1 (2%) | |
Total number of needlings (individual eyes) | n = 33 (17 eyes) | n = 49 (31 eyes) | |
<3 months postop. | n = 8 (8) | n = 14 (12) | 0.6145 |
3–6 months postop | n = 10 (6) | n = 8 (8) | 0.5170 |
6–12 months postop | n = 6 (4) | n = 7 (6) | 0.7403 |
12–24 months postop. | n = 2 (2) | n = 13 (12) | 0.0719 |
>24 months postop. | n = 7(4) | n = 7(6) | 0.7403 |
Total number of incisional bleb revisions (individual eyes) | n = 6 (5 eyes) | n = 4 (4 eyes) | |
<3 months postop. | n = 5 (4) | n = 0 | 0.0055 |
3–6 months postop | n = 1 | n = 1 | 0.6596 |
6–12 months postop | n = 0 | n = 0 | |
12–24 months postop. | n = 0 | n = 2 (2) | 0.2905 |
>24 months postop. | n = 0 | n = 1 | 0.4575 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nasyrov, E.; Merle, D.A.; Gassel, C.J.; Wenzel, D.A.; Voykov, B. Two-Year Results of XEN Gel Stent Implantation for Pseudoexfoliative Glaucoma in Phakic versus Pseudophakic Eyes. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 4066. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13144066
Nasyrov E, Merle DA, Gassel CJ, Wenzel DA, Voykov B. Two-Year Results of XEN Gel Stent Implantation for Pseudoexfoliative Glaucoma in Phakic versus Pseudophakic Eyes. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(14):4066. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13144066
Chicago/Turabian StyleNasyrov, Emil, David A. Merle, Caroline J. Gassel, Daniel A. Wenzel, and Bogomil Voykov. 2024. "Two-Year Results of XEN Gel Stent Implantation for Pseudoexfoliative Glaucoma in Phakic versus Pseudophakic Eyes" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 14: 4066. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13144066