ArticleAmerican journal of ophthalmology case reports2025
Persistent bilateral sclerouveitis following bimatoprost implantation and removal.
Article in American journal of ophthalmology case reports, 2025. 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.
- Expert Opinion to Optimize Clinical Outcomes of Bimatoprost Intracameral Implant Treatment.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To report a case of persistent bilateral sclerouveitis following bilateral bimatoprost implantation (Durysta) that required implant removal and oral steroid course. Observation: A 75-year-old Caucasian male with no prior ocular inflammation experienced bilateral sclerouveitis post bilateral bimatoprost implantation. Despite implant removal from both eyes, the ocular inflammation persisted, showing cystoid macular edema in both eyes and exudative retinal detachment in the right. A comprehensive assessment revealed no clear etiology and no definitive systematic inflammatory syndrome. The ocular inflammation was unresponsive to topical steroids and only receded following weeks-long course of oral steroids. Eventually, the patient required immunosuppression due to recurrence of the inflammation. Conclusion and importance: The persistence and severity of this inflammatory response to bimatoprost implants, despite its removal, highlight the importance of considering patient-specific risk factors and tailoring management accordingly. Clinicians should be prepared for possible severe reactions requiring intervention.
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.