ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Comparative Outcomes of Standalone Xen63 Gel Stent and Preserflo Microshunt Implantation: A Multicenter Study.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- XEN63 Gel Stent in Glaucoma: Narrative Review and Expert Perspectives on Patient Selection, Surgical Technique, and Perioperative Management.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
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: To evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and adverse event profile of Xen63 gel stent compared to the Preserflo microshunt. Methods: Retrospective, multicenter, two-arm cohort study comparing 65 eyes undergoing standalone Xen63 implantation and 75 eyes undergoing standalone Preserflo implantation, all with intraoperative mitomycin C (MMC). Primary outcome was complete success, defined as all of the followings: 1) no two consecutive IOP readings >17mmHg, 2) ≥20% IOP reduction from baseline; 3) no clinical hypotony (IOP <6 mmHg associated with loss of ≥2 lines of vision); and 4) no use of glaucoma medications. Secondary outcomes included success at different IOP cut offs, qualified success (allowing medications), change in IOP, medications, complications, interventions, and re-operations. Results: At 12 months, complete success was achieved in 61.5% of eyes in the Xen63 group and 73.9% in the Preserflo group (p = 0.13). Postoperative complications were more frequent in the Xen63 group compared with the Preserflo group (61.5% vs. 29.3%, p = 0.0002). Postoperative interventions were required at similar rates between groups (Xen63 30.8% vs. Preserflo 28.0%, p = 0.85); however, reoperations were performed more frequently in the Xen63 group (16.9% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.01). Non-Caucasian ethnicity was associated with an increased risk of surgical failure (HR 2.57; 95% CI, 1.26-5.23). Conclusion: Both devices achieved comparable success rates, median IOP reduction, and postoperative medication burden; however, the Xen63 group experienced a higher rate of complications and reoperations.
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.