Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42807060›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026

One-Year Outcomes of Repeat XEN Gel Stent Implantation for Prior XEN Failure: A Retrospective Study.

Arkadiy Yadgarov, Savannah Wegemer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. 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

2 authors.

Arkadiy YadgarovOmni Eye Services, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-4122-4030
Savannah WegemerOmni Eye Services, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-3791-6659

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the 12-month outcomes of repeat XEN gel stent implantation in eyes with prior XEN failure. Patients and Methods: This single-center retrospective chart review included 24 eyes of 24 patients with a previously failed XEN stent, who underwent repeat XEN gel stent implantation between April 2019 and June 2023. Outcome measures included changes in mean intraocular pressure (IOP) and number of IOP-lowering medications from baseline (prior to repeat XEN) to postoperative 12 months, assessment of surgical success defined as achieving IOP ≤18 mmHg without medications (complete success)/on the same or fewer medications (qualified success), without secondary surgical intervention (SSI), and a morphologically functional bleb. Results: The mean age of patients was 65.3 ± 10.9 years. The study population was predominantly African American (79.2%). Among the eyes not requiring SSI, there was a 43.5% reduction in mean IOP from baseline to postoperative 12 months, which was statistically significant (23.50 ± 5.58 mmHg at baseline to 13.28 ± 3.54 mmHg at 12 months (p <0.001). The postoperative 12-month complete success rate was 16.7%, and the qualified success rate was 66.7%. The mean number of IOP-lowering medications also declined significantly from 3.00 ± 1.37 to 1.28 ± 1.13 (p = 0.002), revealing a 57% reduction from baseline to 12 months. No vision-threatening complications were reported. Conclusions: Repeat XEN gel stent implantation may be a viable surgical option for prior XEN failure, providing meaningful reductions in IOP and medication burden in majority of patients. These findings support consideration of a second XEN stent before transitioning to more invasive filtering surgeries.

Indexed as

glaucomaintraocular pressureIOP-lowering medicationsminimally invasive glaucoma surgeryrepeat XEN gel

Identifiers

PMID42807060
PMCPMC13617004

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.