ArticleCureus2026
A Case of Early PreserFlo MicroShunt Obstruction Following Presumed Inadvertent 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We report a case of early postoperative PreserFlo MicroShunt (PFM; Santen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan) obstruction following presumed inadvertent ciliary sulcus implantation. A 67-year-old Japanese man with primary open-angle glaucoma underwent superonasal PFM implantation in the right eye, which had previously undergone cataract surgery, scleral buckling, and microhook ab interno trabeculotomy. The preoperative intraocular pressure (IOP) in the right eye was 26 mmHg on two classes of topical IOP-lowering medications. Although the proximal tip was not visible in the anterior chamber, aqueous humor outflow was confirmed intraoperatively, and the device was left in place. On postoperative day 1, IOP was 24 mmHg, and no filtering bleb was observed. The PFM was removed, and a new device was implanted into the anterior chamber through an adjacent scleral tunnel. The IOP was 6 mmHg on postoperative day 1 after the second PFM implantation. Stereomicroscopic examination of the first explanted PFM device revealed intraluminal pigmented tissue fragments consistent with uveal tissue, although their precise origin could not be established. Bleb needling was performed at five weeks because the IOP had increased to 31 mmHg, presumably due to bleb encapsulation. The IOP was 15 mmHg at three months after reoperation. This instructive case illustrates the importance of confirming the scleral tract trajectory and implant position, as apparently satisfactory intraoperative outflow does not ensure sustained tube patency. These findings should not be generalized to the safety or efficacy of intentional ciliary sulcus implantation.
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.