ArticleEye (London, England)2024
Aqueous shunt exposure repair: outcomes and risk factors for recurrence.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. 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.
- Extrusion-Free Survival Following Glaucoma Drainage Device Surgery Using EverPatch PlusJournal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Glaucoma drainage device erosion rescued with upper eyelid forniceal conjunctival pedicle flap.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2025Article
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
objectiveTo investigate the outcomes of aqueous shunt exposure repair and to identify risk factors for recurrent exposure after surgical repair.
methodsThis is a retrospective interventional case series of consecutive patients who underwent repair of an exposed aqueous shunt. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from the patients' records and survival analysis was employed to determine the probability of survival of the repair without further exposure. Cox proportional regression analysis was utilised to identify potential risk factors for failure of the repair surgery.
resultsSeventy-six eyes of 76 patients were included in the study. The probability of survival without further exposure was 76.2% (CI 66.9-86.8%), 72.7% (CI 62.8-84.1%) and 54.7% (40.5-73.7%) at 1,2 and 4 years, respectively. No eye in which the tube was repositioned in the anterior chamber or in the sulcus (n = 9; 11.8%) developed a recurrence of the exposure. A shorter interval from the time of tube insertion to the repair surgery (HR 2.87 [CI 1.11-7.39]; p = 0.03; reference longer interval), a history of previous surgical revision (HR 3.06 [1.15-8.12]; p = 0.02; reference no prior revision) and the use of a human pericardial donor patch at the time of revision (HR 3.43 [1.16-10.13]; p = 0.03; reference other than pericardium) was associated with an increased risk of exposure recurrence.
conclusionAqueous shunt exposure revision is associated with reasonable mid and long term success. A shorter interval from tube insertion to exposure revision, previous revisions and the use of a human pericardium patch were associated with increased risk of failure.
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.