Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42768080›Full record

ArticleEye (London, England)2026

Endophthalmitis following glaucoma drainage device surgery.

Abdelrahman M Elhusseiny, Ahmad F Alzein, Qais A Dihan, Hashem Abu Serhan, Aron M Sebhat, Reem H ElSheikh, Jawad Muayad, Nicolas A Yannuzzi, Elena Bitrian, Ta C Chang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Eye (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Abdelrahman M ElhusseinyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harvey and Bernice Jones Eye Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. amelhusseiny@uams.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1412-375X
Ahmad F AlzeinUniversity of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Qais A DihanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harvey and Bernice Jones Eye Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Hashem Abu SerhanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Aron M SebhatDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Reem H ElSheikhDepartment of Ophthalmology, Harvey and Bernice Jones Eye Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Jawad MuayadSchool of Medicine, Texas A&M University, Houston, TX, USA.
Nicolas A YannuzziDepartment of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
Elena BitrianDepartment of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-9325-2503
Ta C ChangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA. t.chang@med.miami.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4827-5014

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate the risk of endophthalmitis in glaucoma patients undergoing glaucoma drainage device (GDD) surgery.

methodsThis retrospective cohort study identified glaucoma patients utilising TriNetX's database who underwent GDD between 2004 and 2024 without a prior history of glaucoma surgery. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis estimated the cumulative incidence of endophthalmitis and a Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for demographic and clinical covariates, was used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) comparing outcomes between patients who underwent tube shunt surgery versus trabeculectomy. A scleral buckle (SB) cohort was added as a second comparator to GDD to contextualise infection risk related to hardware without bleb formation.

resultsThe GDD cohort included 12,849 patients (mean age 62.7 ± 19 years), compared with 9,006 trabeculectomy patients (67.9 ± 14.1) and 3,097 SB patients (45.1 ± 18.7). After GDD surgery, the cumulative incidence of endophthalmitis was 0.82% at 1, 1.57% at 3 and 1.87% at 5 years, compared with 0.47%, 0.78% and 0.96% following trabeculectomy and 0.19%, 0.23% and 0.39% following SB. In Cox models, there was no significant difference in hazard between GDD and trabeculectomy at any timepoint. However, GDD was associated with higher risk than SB at 30 days (aHR 5.43, CI: 1.28-23.08, 1 year (aHR 3.36, 95% CI 1.88-5.99) and 5 years (aHR 3.71, 95% CI 2.40-5.73).

conclusionEndophthalmitis is an uncommon but persistent risk after GDD surgery. Although long-term risk was comparable between GDD and trabeculectomy, GDD implantation carried a higher risk than SB.

Identifiers

PMID42768080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.