ArticleCureus2026
A Simplified Technique for Glaucoma Drainage Device Ciliary Sulcus Implantation.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose The study aimed to describe a simplified technique for ciliary sulcus (CS) placement of glaucoma drainage devices (GDD) and to report long-term clinical outcomes in phakic and pseudophakic eyes. Methods This retrospective case series included 10 eyes of 10 patients who underwent CS placement of a PAUL Glaucoma Implant (Advanced Ophthalmic Innovations, Singapore) or Baerveldt 350 mm² implant (Advanced Medical Optics, Santa Ana, USA) at a large tertiary referral eye unit in London in 2021. Indications included uncontrolled intraocular pressure (IOP) despite maximal medical therapy and prior unsuccessful glaucoma surgery, or a low likelihood of trabeculectomy success. Pre- and postoperative data collected by case note review included IOP, visual acuity, visual field indices, number of IOP-lowering medications, and complications. A standardised technique using a 90-degree bent needle to create a controlled scleral tunnel directing the tube into the CS was employed in all cases. Results Mean follow-up was 47.7 months (range 36-57 months). Mean IOP decreased significantly from 28.7 ± 6.9 mmHg preoperatively to 14.4 ± 2.9 mmHg at final follow-up (p = 0.002). The median number of IOP-lowering medications decreased from three preoperatively to 1.5 at final follow-up (p = 0.014). Visual acuity (logMAR) and visual field mean deviation remained stable over follow-up. Six eyes required stent suture removal, and one eye underwent early paracentesis for suspected tube obstruction. Additional glaucoma surgery was required in three pseudophakic eyes with prior glaucoma surgery. One eye developed corneal decompensation requiring a graft; this eye had chronic uveitis and extensive anterior synechiae, and neither the anterior chamber nor sulcus tube was in contact with the corneal endothelium on serial examination. Eyes without prior glaucoma surgery experienced fewer postoperative events. Conclusions Ciliary sulcus placement of GDD tubes using a simplified entry technique achieved durable IOP reduction with preservation of visual function and an acceptable safety profile over long-term follow-up. The technique appears particularly useful in eyes at increased risk of corneal complications or without a suitable anterior chamber and provides a reproducible alternative to anterior chamber tube placement in both phakic and pseudophakic patients.
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.