Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multicenter case series of standalone XEN implant vs. combination with phacoemulsification in Turkish patients

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

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate and compare the efficacy, safety and needling timing and rates of standalone XEN implant vs. combination with phacoemulsification in Turkish patients.

Methods

Retrospective, multicenter study which included the data of patients, who had open angle glaucoma including primary open angle glaucoma and pseudoexfoliation glaucoma, underwent standalone XEN implantation (XEN alone) and combined surgery with phacoemulsification (XEN + Phaco) between 2016 and 2018.

Results

The study included 26 eyes of 24 patients in XEN alone group and 32 eyes of 30 patients in XEN + Phaco group. The mean intraocular pressure (IOP) was 23.3 ± 6.0 mmHg and 24.4 ± 7.4 mmHg at baseline (p = 0.838), and it reduced to 16.3 ± 3.0 mmHg and 16.4 ± 2.3 mmHg at 12-month follow-up (p = 0.436) in XEN alone and XEN + Phaco groups, respectively (reduction: %30 and %33, P = 0.642). The mean number of medications reduced from 2.9 + 0.7 before surgery to 0.9 + 0.9 on month 12. In XEN alone and XEN + Phaco groups, the needling rates were 42.3% and 31.2% (p = 0.491), and the mean time to needling was 3.7 ± 3.2 months and 4.9 ± 8.0 months (p = 0.696), respectively. Hypotonia (17.2%) and hyphema (10.3%) were the most frequent complications, respectively. In XEN alone and XEN + Phaco groups, partial success was achieved in 73.1% and 71.9% of eyes when defined as IOP < 18 mmHg with any medication, respectively (p = 0.920).

Conclusion

The XEN implant provides significant reduction in IOP and number of medications, either standalone or combination with phacoemulsification. Both procedures need intensive postoperative care, requiring needling in approximately one-third of patients.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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(11):2081–2090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Hussein M, Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial G (2002) Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 120(10):1268–1279. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.120.10.1268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen DZ, Koh V, Sng C, Aquino MC, Chew P (2015) Complications and outcomes of primary phacotrabeculectomy with mitomycin C in a multi-ethnic asian population. PLoS ONE 10(3):e0118852. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118852

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Lavia C, Dallorto L, Maule M, Ceccarelli M, Fea AM (2017) Minimally-invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS) for open angle glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 12(8):e0183142. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Sheybani A, Reitsamer H, Ahmed II (2015) Fluid dynamics of a novel micro-fistula implant for the surgical treatment of glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 56(8):4789–4795. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.15-16625

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Law SK, Riddle J (2011) Management of cataracts in patients with glaucoma. Int Ophthalmol Clin 51(3):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1097/IIO.0b013e31821e58aa

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jiang N, Zhao GQ, Lin J, Hu LT, Che CY, Wang Q, Xu Q, Li C, Zhang J (2018) Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of combined surgery in the management of eyes with coexisting cataract and open angle glaucoma. Int J Ophthalmol 11(2):279–286. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2018.02.17

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Marcos Parra MT, Salinas Lopez JA, Lopez Grau NS, Ceausescu AM, Perez Santonja JJ (2019) XEN implant device versus trabeculectomy, either alone or in combination with phacoemulsification, in open-angle glaucoma patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 257(8):1741–1750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-019-04341-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mansouri K, Guidotti J, Rao HL, Ouabas A, D’Alessandro E, Roy S, Mermoud A (2018) Prospective evaluation of standalone XEN gel implant and combined phacoemulsification-XEN gel implant surgery: 1-year results. J Glaucoma 27(2):140–147. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Heidinger A, Schwab C, Lindner E, Riedl R, Mossbock G (2019) A Retrospective study of 199 Xen45 stent implantations from 2014 to 2016. J Glaucoma 28(1):75–79. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Olivier J, Bell ML (2013) Effect sizes for 2x2 contingency tables. PLoS ONE 8(3):e58777. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058777

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Perez-Torregrosa VT, Olate-Perez A, Cerda-Ibanez M, Gargallo-Benedicto A, Osorio-Alayo V, Barreiro-Rego A, Duch-Samper A (2016) Combined phacoemulsification and XEN45 surgery from a temporal approach and 2 incisions. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 91(9):415–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oftal.2016.02.006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hohberger B, Welge-Lussen UC, Lammer R (2018) MIGS: therapeutic success of combined Xen Gel stent implantation with cataract surgery. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 256(3):621–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-017-3895-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gillmann K, Bravetti GE, Mermoud A, Rao HL, Mansouri K (2019) XEN gel stent in pseudoexfoliative glaucoma: 2-year results of a prospective evaluation. J Glaucoma 28(8):676–684. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Karimi A, Lindfield D, Turnbull A, Dimitriou C, Bhatia B, Radwan M, Gouws P, Hanifudin A, Amerasinghe N, Jacob A (2019) A multi-centre interventional case series of 259 ab-interno Xen gel implants for glaucoma, with and without combined cataract surgery. Eye (Lond) 33(3):469–477. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-018-0243-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tan SZ, Walkden A, Au L (2018) One-year result of XEN45 implant for glaucoma: efficacy, safety, and postoperative management. Eye (Lond) 32(2):324–332. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2017.162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schlenker MB, Gulamhusein H, Conrad-Hengerer I, Somers A, Lenzhofer M, Stalmans I, Reitsamer H, Hengerer FH, Ahmed IIK (2017) Efficacy, safety, and risk factors for failure of standalone AB interno gelatin microstent implantation versus standalone trabeculectomy. Ophthalmology 124(11):1579–1588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.05.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Buffault J, Baudouin C, Labbe A (2019) XEN((R)) Gel Stent for management of chronic open angle glaucoma: a review of the literature. J Fr Ophtalmol 42(2):e37–e46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfo.2018.12.002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Midha N, Rao HL, Mermoud A, Mansouri K (2019) Identifying the predictors of needling after XEN gel implant. Eye (Lond) 33(3):353–357. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-018-0206-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mansberger SL, Gordon MO, Jampel H, Bhorade A, Brandt JD, Wilson B, Kass MA, Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study G (2012) Reduction in intraocular pressure after cataract extraction: the ocular hypertension treatment study. Ophthalmology 119(9):1826–1831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.02.050

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Merkur A, Damji KF, Mintsioulis G, Hodge WG (2001) Intraocular pressure decrease after phacoemulsification in patients with pseudoexfoliation syndrome. J Cataract Refract Surg 27(4):528–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(00)00753-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Arimura S, Iwasaki K, Gozawa M, Takamura Y, Inatani M (2019) Trabeculectomy followed by phacoemulsification versus trabeculectomy alone: the collaborative bleb-related infection incidence and treatment study. PLoS ONE 14(10):e0223439. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223439

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study. All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Muhsin Eraslan, AltanAtakan Özcan have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Marmara University School of Medicine, Marmara Universitesi Pendik Egitim Arastirma Hastanesi Goz Hastaliklari Anabilim Dali Departmani Fevzi Cakmak Mah. Muhsin Yazicioglu Cad. No: 10 Ust Kaynarca/Pendik, Istanbul, 34890, Turkey

    Muhsin Eraslan & Volkan Dericioğlu

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Çukurova University School of Medicine, Adana, Turkey

    Altan Atakan Özcan

  3. Department of Ophthalmology, Adana City Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey

    Emine Çiloğlu

Authors
  1. Muhsin Eraslan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Altan Atakan Özcan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Volkan Dericioğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emine Çiloğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors conceived and designed the study. VD, EÇ, ME, AAÖ acquired the data. VD and EÇ analyzed and interpreted the data. VD wrote the manuscript. ME and AAÖ revised the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Volkan Dericioğlu.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Ethics Committee of Marmara University (Istanbul, Turkey) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. There is no Clinical Trial Registration number for the study.

Availability data and material

Raw data were generated at Marmara University School of Medicine Ophthalmology Department. Derived data supporting the findings of this study and the informed consent of the patients are available from the corresponding author (VD) on request.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Patients signed informed consent regarding publishing their data and photographs.

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

Eraslan, M., Özcan, A.A., Dericioğlu, V. et al. Multicenter case series of standalone XEN implant vs. combination with phacoemulsification in Turkish patients. Int Ophthalmol 41, 3371–3379 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-01899-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-01899-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation