ReviewCureus2025
Microshunt Matchup: XEN vs. PRESERFLO in the Arena of Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive bleb-forming procedures, such as the XEN® Gel Stent and the PRESERFLO™ MicroShunt, are surgical options used to lower intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). This review compares the safety and efficacy of the two devices. A literature search was conducted using Ovid Medline and Embase. Studies were included if they were published in journals with an impact factor above 1.5 and reported outcomes at least 6 months after implantation of XEN or PRESERFLO. Only adult patients with POAG were included. The main outcomes assessed were mean IOP reduction, change in the number of glaucoma medications, and the occurrence of key complications or further interventions. Both devices demonstrated consistent and clinically meaningful IOP reduction in published studies. In a two-year, single-centre retrospective study, 41 eyes treated with XEN showed IOP reduction from 19.2 ± 4.4 mmHg to 13.8 ± 3.8 mmHg (a 28% reduction). In the same study, PRESERFLO in 41 eyes lowered IOP from 20.1 ± 5.0 mmHg to 12.1 ± 3.5 mmHg (a 39% reduction). The average number of medications decreased by approximately 62% with XEN and 69% with PRESERFLO. After 24 months, about 62% of XEN eyes and 64% of PRESERFLO eyes no longer required medications. Early hypotony, defined as IOP ≤ 5 mmHg, occurred in 24% of XEN and 39% of PRESERFLO cases. Persistent hypotony was reported in about 8% of XEN cases. Needling was more common after XEN (20%) than after PRESERFLO (5%). At two years, XEN studies showed around 28% IOP reduction, whereas PRESERFLO studies reported IOP lowering of about 35-39% over the same period. In conclusion, both PRESERFLO and XEN are effective options for managing POAG. However, PRESERFLO may offer more consistent IOP reduction, greater medication-use reduction, and fewer post-operative interventions, making it a potentially more reliable long-term option.
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.