Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40937094›Full record

ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025

A Systematic Review of the PAUL Glaucoma Implant.

Nicholas Tan, Steven Summers, Saif Aldeen Alryalat, Jennifer L Patnaik, Gabriel S Lazcano-Gomez, Leonard K Seibold, Malik Y Kahook

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Nicholas TanDepartment of Ophthalmology, The University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7362-0038
Steven SummersDepartment of Ophthalmology, The University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.
Saif Aldeen AlryalatDepartment of Ophthalmology, The University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.
Jennifer L PatnaikDepartment of Ophthalmology, The University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.ORCID 0009-0005-0333-3614
Gabriel S Lazcano-GomezDepartment of Ophthalmology, The University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4818-9343
Leonard K SeiboldDepartment of Ophthalmology, The University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.
Malik Y KahookDepartment of Ophthalmology, The University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

efficacyglaucoma drainage deviceoutcomessafetytube shunt

Identifiers

PMID40937094
PMCPMC12421142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.