Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Xen implantation in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma: comparison of two different techniques

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare retrospectively two different techniques of Xen implantation, which are transconjunctival (ab-externo) and standard (ab-interno) techniques.

Methods

Forty-three eyes of 43 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) who had Xen implantation operation via transconjunctival (ab-externo) technique comprised Group 1. Of the 43 patients, 20 (46.5%) were males and 23 (53.5%) were females. Their mean age was 61.76 ± 8.81 (41–74) years. Forty-four eyes of 44 patients with POAG who had Xen implantation operation via standard (ab-interno) technique comprised Group 2. Of the 44 patients, 21 (47.7%) were males and 23 (52.3%) were females. The mean age of this group was 63.80 ± 9.78 (38–75) years.

Results

Regarding age and sex, there were no significant differences between the groups (p > 0.05). The mean postoperative 1st day, 1st week, 1st month, 3rd month, 6th month, and 12th month IOPs were significantly lower than the mean preoperative IOP in both groups (p < 0.05). The mean number of anti-glaucomatous agents used postoperatively was significantly lower than the mean preoperative number for both groups (p < 0.05). There was a significantly smaller need for needling in the transconjunctival group (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Xen implantation is a safe and effective method of reducing IOP and anti-glaucomatous dependence. Potential postoperative complications can be resolved easily. There were no significant differences between the standard method and the transconjunctival method in respect of IOP and re-use of anti-glaucomatous agents. However, there was a significantly smaller need for needling in the transconjunctival group. We recommend further studies to investigate long-term results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Quigley HA, Broman AT (2006) The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol 90(3):262–267

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ et al (2002) The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 120(6):701–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B et al (2002) Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression. Arch Ophthalmol 120(10):1268–1279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW et al (2001) Interim clinical outcomes in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery. Ophthalmology 108(11):1943–1953

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng CY (2014) Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 121(7):2081–2090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Vinod K, Gedde SJ, Feuer WJ et al (2017) Practice preferences for glaucoma surgery: a survey of the American glaucoma Society. J Glaucoma 26:687–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Richter GM, Coleman AM (2016) Minimally invasive glaucoma surgery: current status and future prospects. Clin Ophthalmol 10:189–206

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Sheybani A, Reitsamer H, Ahmed I (2015) Fluid dynamics of a novel micro-fistula implant for the surgical treatment of glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 56(8):4789–4795

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Galal A, Bilgic A, Eltanamly R, Osman A (2017) XEN glaucoma implant with mitomycin C 1-year follow-up: result and complications. J Ophthalmol 2017:5457246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee RMH, Bouremel Y, Eames I, Brocchini S, Khaw PT (2019) The implications of an ab interno versus ab externo surgical approach on outflow resistance of a subconjunctival drainage device for intraocular pressure control. Transl Vis Sci Technol 8(3):58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yu DY, Morgan WH, Sun X, Su EN, Cringle SJ, Yu PK et al (2009) The critical role of the conjunctiva in glaucoma filtration surgery. Prog Retin Eye Res 28:303–328

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, Budenz DL (2012) Treatment outcomes in the tube versus trabeculectomy (TVT) study after five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol 153:789–803.e2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Vera VI, Horvath C (2014) XEN gel stent: the solution designed by AqueSys®. In: Samples JR, Ahmed II (eds) Surgical innovations in glaucoma. Springer, New York, pp 189–198

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Slabaugh MA, Chen PP (2014) The effect of cataract extraction on intraocular pressure. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 25(2):122–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith M, Charles R, Abdel-Hay A et al (2019) 1-year outcomes of the Xen45 glaucoma implant. Eye (Lond) 33(5):761–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kalina AG, Kalina PH, Brown MM (2019) XEN gel stent in medically refractory open-angle glaucoma: results and observations after one year of use in the United States. Ophthalmol Ther 8(3):435–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. De Gregoria A, Pedrotti E, Russo L et al (2018) Minimally invasive combined glaucoma and cataract surgery: clinical results of the smallest ab interno gel stent. Int Ophthalmol 38:1129–1134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Grover DS, Flynn WJ, Bashford KP et al (2017) Performance and safety of a new ab interno gelatin stent in refractory glaucoma at 12 months. Am J Ophthalmol 183:25–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pérez-Torregrosa VT, Olate-Pérez Á, Cerdà-Ibáñez M et al (2016) Combined phacoemulsification and Xen45 surgery from temporal approach and 2 incisions. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 91:415–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tan SZ, Walkden A, Au L (2018) One-year result of XEN45 implant for glaucoma: efficacy, safety, and postoperative management. Eye 32:324–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Schlenker MB, Gulamhusein H, Conrad-Hengerer I et al (2017) Efficacy, safety, and risk factors for failure of standalone ab interno gelatin microstent implantation versus standalone trabeculectomy. J Ophthalmol 124(11):1579–1588

    Google Scholar 

  22. Widder RA, Dietlein TS, Dinslage S et al (2018) The XEN 45 gel stent as a minimally invasive procedure in glaucoma surgery: success rates, risk profile, and rates of re-surgery after 261 surgeries. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 256(4):765–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stoumbos Z, Ansari H. Ab-externo Xen. New England Ophthalmological Society. May 31, 2019 conference. Poster

  24. Abadeh A, Yan D, Ahmed II. Evaluating a novel ab-externo technique for implantation of Xen gel stent in eyes with previous failed glaucoma surgery. 2019 COS annual meeting, 14 June. Poster

  25. Abadeh A. Novel ab-externo implantation technique for Xen gel stent in eyes with previous filtering surgery. AGS 2019 annual meeting, 14–17 Mar. Poster

  26. Samaniego CAR. MIGS update, The Xen 45 ab-externo. EyeWorld (ASCRS). July 2019, p 1–7

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Konyagoz Eye Hospital, Sancak Mah. Unluer Sok. No:13, 42000, Selcuklu, Konya, Turkey

    Fikret Ucar & Servet Cetinkaya

Authors
  1. Fikret Ucar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Servet Cetinkaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fikret Ucar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest and no financial disclosure.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ucar, F., Cetinkaya, S. Xen implantation in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma: comparison of two different techniques. Int Ophthalmol 40, 2487–2494 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01427-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01427-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation