ArticleInternational ophthalmology2025
Adverse events associated with the subconjunctival Ex-Press® Glaucoma Filtration Device: a ten-year review of the MAUDE database.
Article in International ophthalmology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze adverse events related to the Ex-Press® Glaucoma Filtration Device reported in the FDA's MAUDE database over a 10-year period. STUDY
designA retrospective case series.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 533 unique adverse event reports submitted between January 1, 2015, and November 8, 2024. Data collected included patient demographics, reporter details, device model, event type (injury vs. malfunction), problem codes, and device availability for manufacturer evaluation. Descriptive statistics summarized patterns of device and patient problems.
resultsThe median patient age was 72 years (range 20-94), with sex reported in 2.3% of cases. The P-50 PL model accounted for 98% of reports, followed by the P-200 PL (2%). Devices were available for evaluation in 36.8% of cases, but only 19.3% were evaluated. Reports were 61% injuries and 39% malfunctions. A total of 440 device-related and 457 patient-related problems were identified. The most common device problems were displacement (31.4%) and flow obstruction (26.8%). Among patient problems, increased intraocular pressure (27.6%) and iris contact (22.3%) were most frequent. Injuries predominated in 2015-2016 (73.7%), shifting to malfunctions from 2020 to 2024 (76.9%).
conclusionsAdverse events involving the Ex-Press® device primarily include injuries and malfunctions, with device displacement and flow obstruction being most common. The observed shift likely reflects changes in device use and surveillance rather than true safety changes. Despite limitations of passive reporting, these findings offer valuable real-world insights that complement clinical trial data and highlight the utility of the FDA's MAUDE database as a tool for post-market surveillance. This approach can be replicated for other ophthalmic devices to enhance long-term safety monitoring and inform clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41420769What 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.