XEN‑45 implantation for refractory secondary glaucoma
Résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of XEN-45 gel stent in different types of refractory secondary glaucoma (SG). METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 39 patients (42 eyes) who underwent XEN-45 gel stent implantation for medically uncontrolled SG using two approaches, ab externo closed-conjunctiva (AEC) and ab externo open-conjunctiva (AEO). The intraocular pressure (IOP) and numbers of antiglaucoma medications were compared between preoperative and postoperative values. The requirement for revision, bleb needling and further glaucoma surgery were recorded. RESULTS: IOP was decreased significantly from 31.79 ± 10.62 mmHg to 14.06 ± 4.45 mmHg (p < 0.001) by the final visit (averaging 13.74 ± 7.96 months post-surgery) and the number of antiglaucoma medications was reduced from 3.67 ± 0.87 to 0.36 ± 0.82 (p < 0.001). Twenty-three eyes (54.8%) required postoperative needling. Twelve eyes (28.6%) required open conjunctival bleb revision. At the final follow-up, 33 eyes (78.6%) achieved complete success, defined as an IOP of 18 mmHg or lower without medications, and 36 eyes (85.7%) reached qualified success, maintaining an IOP of 18 mmHg or lower with medications, while 2 eyes (4.76%) needed trabeculectomy. There were no vision-threatening and ocular infection complications intraoperatively or postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: XEN-45 gel stent provides a minimally invasive option for eyes with SG and requires close monitoring and timely postoperative management. The incidence of adverse events following the procedure is rare.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- XEN‑45 implantation for refractory secondary glaucoma
- Date Crossref
- 14/11/2025
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.