ArticleScientific reports2025
Xen 63 versus Preserflo MicroShunt implant in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Two-years efficacy and safety of bleb forming devices in uncontrolled glaucoma.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Update on XEN Gel Stent: A Narrative Review on Indications, Surgical Technique, and Postoperative Management.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Comparative Outcomes of Standalone Xen63 Gel Stent and Preserflo Microshunt Implantation: A Multicenter Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- XEN63 Gel Stent in Glaucoma: Narrative Review and Expert Perspectives on Patient Selection, Surgical Technique, and Perioperative Management.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Reducing Postoperative Needling in XEN63Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Should We Fear Wipe-Out in Glaucoma Surgery?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared the efficacy safety profiles of the Xen 63 and Preserflo MicroShunt devices, both standalone, in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). It is a retrospective and single-center study conducted on consecutive on patients with medically uncontrolled POAG who underwent either a standalone Xen 63 or a standalone Preserflo and had a 12-month follow-up visit. The primary outcome was the mean IOP at month-12. Sixty eyes were included, 30 eyes in each Xen 63 and Preserflo groups, respectively. Preoperative IOP was significantly lowered from 20.8 ± 3.6 mmHg and 19.1 ± 3.8 mmHg to 14.2 ± 4.5 mmHg and 12.8 ± 2.3 mmHg in the Xen 63 and Preserflo groups, respectively (p < 0.0001 each, respectively); without significant differences between groups (p = 0.1346). Preoperative number of ocular-hypotensive drugs was significantly reduced from 2.3 ± 0.6 to 0.2 ± 06 drugs and from 2.3 ± 0.7 to 0.3 ± 0.6 drugs, in the Xen 63 and Preserflo groups, respectively (p < 0.0001 each, respectively); without significant differences between groups (p = 0.5212). Regarding safety, one (3.3%) eye in the Preserflo group required a device removal due to maculopathy. Three (10.0%) eyes in the Xen 63 group underwent needling. In conclusion, both the Xen 63 and the Preserflo devices effectively and safely reduced IOP and the requirement for IOP-lowering medications, exhibiting comparable IOP levels after 12 months.
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.