ArticleJournal of current glaucoma practice
Two-year Outcomes of XEN Implantation with Minimal Bleb Needling.
Article in Journal of current glaucoma practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Should We Fear Wipe-Out in Glaucoma Surgery?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Two-year outcomes of Xen 45 gel stent implantation in patients with open-angle glaucoma: real-world data from the Fight Glaucoma Blindness registry.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Our study aims to report the 2 years outcomes of the XEN implant in a single unit, single surgeon setting with minimal bleb needling. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent implantation with a XEN device between May 2016 and December 2017. This included patients who underwent both combined phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation alongside XEN implantation and those who underwent XEN implantation alone. Data gathered included basic demographic data, best-corrected visual acuity (LogMAR), intraocular pressure (IOP) in mm Hg, mean deviation from their visual field test, and the number of IOP-lowering medications they were on. This information was recorded for their preoperative visit, and then at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months postoperatively. The primary outcome assessed was a complete success when the patient was without glaucoma medications and had an IOP of 18 mm Hg or less, but more importantly, this also had to equate to a 20% reduction in IOP compared to baseline. Qualified success was defined as the same change in IOP but with medications. Surgical failure is defined as those who required additional glaucoma surgery or those who did not obtain an IOP of 18 mm Hg alongside a 20% reduction in IOP compared to baseline. Results: At 24 months follow-up 82.5% of patients were surgical successes. Complete surgical success was achieved in 27% of patients. Qualified surgical success was achieved in 55.6% of patients. Subgroup analysis of those undergoing XEN implantation on its own and those combined with phacoemulsification + IOL were similar. The rate of bleb needling was low at 4.5%. Complication rates were acceptable at 9.5%. Conclusion: It is possible to get good IOP control with minimal postoperative bleb needling in patients who have undergone XEN implantation. Similar success rates are found in those undergoing combined procedures. Clinical Significance: Bleb needling carries its own risks. Minimizing the number of bleb needling allows procedures to be reserved at a later date. Furthermore, our study shows that success rates are not affected by doing a combined procedure with phacoemulsification. How to cite this article: Ali ZC, Moshin N, Hakim MT,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.