ArticleCase reports in ophthalmology
Surgical Repair of the Extrusion of the Body of a PAUL Implant for Glaucoma.
Article in Case reports in ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Paul tube implant: a meta-analysis and systematic review evaluating clinical outcomes.Eye (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Tube erosions following glaucoma drainage device implantations.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of the paul glaucoma implant in the treatment of refractory primary congenital glaucoma.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Assessing the Efficacy of the PAUL Glaucoma Implant in Pseudoexfoliative Glaucoma.Beyoglu eye journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of our article was to describe a simple but effective surgical technique performed on a patient with an extrusion of part of the body of a PAUL drainage implant for glaucoma. We present the case of a patient with refractory glaucoma and a history of multiple ocular interventions. A PAUL shunt was implanted and in the early postoperative period the patient presented extrusion of part of the implant body. An excessive scarring tissue at the lateral rectus muscle tendon hampered the placement of the lateral wing under the muscle; therefore, we decided to trim a part of it and suture the implant body to the sclera. The surgical technique that satisfactorily resolved the complication is described and shown in a video. This is the first time that such complication is described with the PAUL implant. We suggest that the intrinsic characteristics of the implant, mainly the dimensions, material, and thickness, made it possible for a potentially serious complication such as that described to be solved in a relatively simple and nontraumatic way for the eye.
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.