ArticleScientific reports2025
Tube erosions following glaucoma drainage device implantations.
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 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.
- [Research progress and applications of biologically derived materials in scleral reconstruction].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Review
- Treatment outcomes of paul versus ahmed glaucoma implants.PloS one · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glaucoma drainage devices (GDD) are an important treatment option for advanced and complex glaucoma patients. To prevent tube erosion, different materials may be used to patch the tube. The aim of this study was to compare tube erosion rates of allogenous fascia lata versus corneal stromal patches relating to Ahmed glaucoma implant (AGI) and Paul glaucoma implant (PGI) surgeries. In this retrospective study, 84 patients were included. The tube was covered with allogenous fascia lata (n = 43) or a corneal stromal patch (n = 41). 32 eyes of 31 patients underwent AGI and 52 eyes of 52 patients underwent PGI surgeries. The number of tube erosions was evaluated during 18 months of follow-up. Tube erosions occurred in 4 patients with fascia lata patches (9.3%) and 1 patient (2.4%) with a corneal stromal patch (p = 0.184). In the superior quadrants (n = 78; 92.9% of all GDD), tube erosions were significantly more frequent with fascia lata (n = 4) compared to corneal stromal (n = 0) patches (p = 0.045). There was no difference in the number of tube erosions between the AGI (n = 2) and PGI (n = 3) group (p = 0.928). Tube erosions after GDD are rare. Fascia lata patches were more frequently associated with tube erosions than corneal stromal patches.
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.