ArticleInternational ophthalmology2024
Complications after CyPass® Micro-Stent explantation: a case series.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo describe the in toto explantation of the CyPass® Micro-Stent and its conceivable complications.
methodsThis is a case series of eighteen eyes from fourteen patients who underwent CyPass® Micro-Stent implantation due to mild to moderate glaucoma and who subsequently suffered from loss of endothelial cell density. Consequently, the CyPass® Micro-Stent was in toto explanted. The surgical procedure and its complications are described and compared with trimming of the CyPass® Micro-Stent.
resultsA postoperative hyphema was developed in 8 of the 18 eyes. In four of them the hyphema was self-limiting, while in two patients an anterior chamber irrigation was necessary. One patient suffered from a severe intracameral bleeding and iridodialysis during explantation, so that the base of the iris had to be scleral fixated. The remaining explantations were without complications.
conclusionDealing with implanted CyPass® Micro-Stents poses a challenge for ophthalmic surgeons. An in toto removal can be traumatic, since the CyPass stent often is fibrotic encapsulated and fused with the surrounding tissue. Alternatively, trimming of the CyPass is also a viable option to avoid further endothelial damage. Reported complications of CyPass trimming are consistent with those that can occur after explantation. Further data on the development of the endothelial cells after trimming or explantation are not yet available. Therefore, it remains open whether trimming of the CyPass, in contrast to complete removal, carries the risk of further endothelial cell loss.
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.