ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
A Systematic Review of the PAUL Glaucoma Implant.
Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Salvage of a severed Paul Glaucoma Implant tube via anastomosis with an Ahmed Glaucoma Valve in a child with Sturge-Weber syndrome and complicated glaucoma: a case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Outcomes of the Paul Glaucoma Implant in an Ambispective Multicenter Study: 12-Month Follow-Up.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Article
- Effect of Combined Cataract and Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgeries on Glaucoma-Specific Quality of Life.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The PAUL Glaucoma Implant (PGI) is a novel, valveless glaucoma drainage device that is distinguished from prevailing tube shunts by its compact plate and small lumen. However, clinical consensus is lacking on its real-world advantages. Thus, we conducted a systematic review to assess PGI surgical approaches, safety, and efficacy. A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Single case reports were excluded. Twenty-six studies comprising 1143 eyes were included. The most common duration of follow-up was one year, and five studies were prospective. Median IOP reduction by last follow-up was 53.4% (range 27.7-66.2%), and glaucoma medication use decreased by 71.8% (42.3-94.6%). At an intraocular pressure (IOP) upper threshold of 21 mmHg, the median qualified success rate was 92.0% (80.0-100.0%), and complete success was 48.0% (24.0-73.3%); though criteria varied between studies. The most frequently reported complications were hyphema (10.0%), numerical hypotony (9.7%), and shallow anterior chamber (5.9%). Tube erosion occurred in 5.0% of cases overall, and in 9.8% of eyes in prospective studies. A single randomized controlled trial comparing the PGI to the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve in pediatric patients found noninferiority at 12 months, but was limited by sample size and generalizability. Four additional retrospective comparative studies (three versus Baerveldt, one versus Ahmed) showed no consistent advantages of the PGI. Substantial variation was also reported in PGI surgical techniques, including ripcord use, graft material, and adjunctive antifibrotics. While the PGI appears effective in lowering IOP and medication burden, current evidence is limited by retrospective designs, small cohorts, heterogeneous protocols, and short follow-up. Tube erosions were reported more often than historically seen with Baerveldt and Ahmed devices. Higher-quality, prospective comparative studies are needed to determine the long-term safety, efficacy, and optimal surgical approach for the PGI.
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.