Journal of Current Glaucoma Practice

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2021 ) > List of Articles

CASE REPORT

XEN-augmented Baerveldt Failure: Three Different Revision Approaches for Pediatric Patients

Patrícia José, Luís Abegão Pinto, Filipa Jorge Teixeira

Keywords : Baerveldt tube, Case review, Childhood glaucoma, XEN implant

Citation Information : José P, Pinto LA, Teixeira FJ. XEN-augmented Baerveldt Failure: Three Different Revision Approaches for Pediatric Patients. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2021; 15 (2):96-98.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1307

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-09-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim and objective: Report three different solutions in case of XEN-augmented Baerveldt fails. Background: Drainage devices have been used for refractory pediatric glaucoma. To avoid early hypotony and corneal damage, Mermoud et al. introduced the augmentation of a XEN implant with a Baerveldt tube. In some cases, this technique fails to lead to a high intraocular pressure (IOP) and surgical revision. Case description: Three cases of children with this combined implant needed surgical revision due to high IOP. Three different approaches were performed: XEN replacement in one case, stretching the Baerveldt\'s tube into the anterior chamber (AC) in the second case, and explant of the device followed by an implant of a new Baerveldt-250 in the same quadrant in the third case. Successful control of IOP (>18 mm Hg) was achieved in all patients under no topical treatment. Conclusion: Despite the attractiveness of the XEN-augmented Baerveldt implant in refractory pediatric glaucoma as an alternative to conventional surgery, we have to learn how to deal with failures. Three different approaches are presented with good short-term results. The long-term efficacy is yet to be assessed. Clinical significance: Describe three possible options when faced with a need for surgical revision in XEN-augmented Baerveldt implant.


PDF Share
  1. Papadopoulos M, Edmundus B, Fenerty C, et al. Childhood glaucoma surgery in the 21st century. Eye 2014;28(8):931–943. DOI: 10.1038/eye.2014.140.
  2. Weinreb RN, Grajewski A, Papadopoulos M, et al., Childhood Glaucoma: Consensus Series 9 - World Glaucoma Association. In 2013.
  3. Rolim de Moura C, Fraser-Bell S, Stout A, et al. Experience with the Baerveldt glaucoma implant in the management of pediatric glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2005;139(5):847-854. DOI:10.1016/j.ajo.2004.12.028.
  4. Budenz DL, Barton K, Gedde SJ, et al. Five-year treatment outcomes in the Ahmed Baerveldt comparison study. Ophthalmology 2015;122(2):308–316. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.08.043.
  5. D'Alessandro E, Guidotti JM, Mansouri K, et al. XEN-augmented Baerveldt: a new surgical technique for refractory glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2017;26(2):e90–e92. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000562.
  6. Arad T, Hoffmann EM, Prokosch-Willing V, et al. XEN-augmented Baerveldt implantation for refractory childhood glaucoma: a retrospective case series. J Glaucoma 2019;28(11):1015–1018. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001356.
  7. Sousa DC, Leal I, Abegão Pinto L. XEN gel stent obstruction: test for patency. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 2018;1(1):81. DOI: 10.1016/j.ogla.2018.04.001.
  8. Sng CCA, Wang J, Barton K. Caution in using the XEN-augmented Baerveldt surgical technique. J Glaucoma 2017;26(11):e257. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000637.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.