ArticleFrontiers in ophthalmology2026
Case Report: Tube perforation after bleb reformation after PreserFlo MicroShunt implantation.
Article in Frontiers in ophthalmology, 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: To describe a rare case of tube perforation after PreserFlo MicroShunt (PMS) implantation and subsequent bleb revision, emphasizing the potential mechanisms involved and the strategies employed for clinical management. Observations: An 84-year-old woman with bilateral exfoliation glaucoma underwent PMS implantation in her left eye due to uncontrolled intraocular pressure (IOP) despite receiving maximum medical therapy. The patient had a history of multiple ocular surgeries and long-term use of glaucoma eye drops. The initial surgery was uneventful; however, the patient developed hypotony and choroidal detachment after stent removal, prompting a second procedure for stent reinsertion. Subsequently, a postoperative conjunctival leak developed, and petrolatum-based ophthalmic ointment was used; however, the leakage did not improve, leading to a third surgery. During this procedure, a conjunctival defect and a 0.5-mm tear posterior to the fin of the PMS tube were identified. The device was removed, and a new PMS tube was implanted in a different quadrant. The IOP stabilized postoperatively, with no recurrent leakage or hypotony. Conclusions and importance: This is a rare case report of PMS tube perforation with a conjunctival hole. Potential contributing factors included chronic conjunctival inflammation from long-term use of glaucoma eye drops, previous ocular surgeries, and prostaglandin-associated periorbitopathy. These conditions may have resulted in tissue thinning and mechanical stress, leading to tube exposure and perforation. In addition, loss of the conjunctival barrier and subsequent exposure to petrolatum-based ophthalmic ointment may have compromised the structural integrity of the PMS, potentially leading to perforation due to continued eyelid friction. A careful preoperative assessment of the ocular surface and periocular anatomy is essential for identifying high-risk patients. Furthermore, if the PMS becomes exposed postoperatively, the use of petrolatum-based ophthalmic ointment should be avoided.
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.