Citation Information :
Ali ZC, Moshin N, Hakim MT, Shankar V. Two-year Outcomes of XEN Implantation with Minimal Bleb Needling. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2022; 16 (2):79-83.
Aim: Our study aims to report the 2 years outcomes of the XEN implant in a single unit, single surgeon setting with minimal bleb needling.
Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent implantation with a XEN device between May 2016 and December 2017. This included patients who underwent both combined phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation alongside XEN implantation and those who underwent XEN implantation alone. Data gathered included basic demographic data, best-corrected visual acuity (LogMAR), intraocular pressure (IOP) in mm Hg, mean deviation from their visual field test, and the number of IOP-lowering medications they were on. This information was recorded for their preoperative visit, and then at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months postoperatively. The primary outcome assessed was a complete success when the patient was without glaucoma medications and had an IOP of 18 mm Hg or less, but more importantly, this also had to equate to a 20% reduction in IOP compared to baseline. Qualified success was defined as the same change in IOP but with medications. Surgical failure is defined as those who required additional glaucoma surgery or those who did not obtain an IOP of 18 mm Hg alongside a 20% reduction in IOP compared to baseline.
Results: At 24 months follow-up 82.5% of patients were surgical successes. Complete surgical success was achieved in 27% of patients. Qualified surgical success was achieved in 55.6% of patients. Subgroup analysis of those undergoing XEN implantation on its own and those combined with phacoemulsification + IOL were similar. The rate of bleb needling was low at 4.5%. Complication rates were acceptable at 9.5%.
Conclusion: It is possible to get good IOP control with minimal postoperative bleb needling in patients who have undergone XEN implantation. Similar success rates are found in those undergoing combined procedures.
Clinical Significance: Bleb needling carries its own risks. Minimizing the number of bleb needling allows procedures to be reserved at a later date. Furthermore, our study shows that success rates are not affected by doing a combined procedure with phacoemulsification.
Arnljots TS, Kasina R, Bykov VJN, et al. Needling with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) after XEN gel stent implantation: 6-month outcomes. J Glaucoma 2018;27(10):893–899. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001052
Midha N, Rao HL, Mermoud A, et al. Identifying the predictors of needling after XEN gel implant. Eye (Lond) 2019;33(3):353–357. DOI: 10.1038/s41433-018-0206-0
Yook E, Vinod K, Panarelli JF. Complications of micro-invasive glaucoma surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2018;29(2):147–154. DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000457
Olivari S, Cutolo CA, Negri L, et al. XEN implant fracture during needling procedure. J Glaucoma 2019;28(12):1086–1089. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001360
Vera V, Sheybani A, Lindfield D, et al. Recommendations for the management of elevated intraocular pressure due to bleb fibrosis after XEN gel stent implantation. Clin Ophthalmol 2019;13:685–694. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S195457
Galal A, Bilgic A, Eltanamly R, et al. XEN glaucoma implant with mitomycin C 1-year follow-up: result and complications. J Ophthalmol 2017;2017:5457246. DOI: 10.1155/2017/5457246
Grover DS, Flynn WJ, Bashford KP, et al. Performance and Safety of a New Ab Interno Gelatin Stent in Refractory Glaucoma at 12 Months. Am J ophthalmol 2017;183:25–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.07.023
Ibanez-Munoz A, Soto-Biforcos VS, Chacon-Gonzalez M, et al. One-year follow-up of the XEN(R) implant with mitomycin-C in pseudoexfoliative glaucoma patients. Eur J Ophthalmol 2019;29(3):309–314. DOI: 10.1177/1120672118795063
Mansouri K, Bravetti GE, Gillmann K, et al. Two-year outcomes of XEN gel stent surgery in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 2019;2(5):309–318. DOI: 10.1016/j.ogla.2019.03.011
Mansouri K, Gillmann K, Rao HL, et al. Prospective evaluation of XEN gel implant in eyes with pseudoexfoliative glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2018;27(10):869–873. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001045
Gillmann K, Bravetti GE, Mermoud A, et al. XEN Gel Stent in Pseudoexfoliative Glaucoma: 2-Year Results of a Prospective Evaluation. J Glaucoma 2019;28(8):676–684. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001295
Reitsamer H, Sng C, Vera V, et al. Two-year results of a multicenter study of the ab interno gelatin implant in medically uncontrolled primary open-angle glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2019;257:983–996. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-019-04251-z
Heidinger A, Schwab C, Lindner E, et al. A Retrospective Study of 199 Xen45 Stent Implantations From 2014 to 2016. J Glaucoma 2019;28(1):75–79. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001122
Smith M, Charles R, Abdel-Hay A, et al.1-year outcomes of the Xen45 glaucoma implant. Eye (Lond) 2019;33(5):761–766. DOI: 10.1038/s41433-018-0310-1
Gillmann K, Bravetti GE, Rao HL, et al. Bilateral XEN Stent Implantation: a long-term Prospective Study of the Difference in Outcomes Between First-operated and Fellow Eyes. J Glaucoma 2020;29(7):536–541. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001520
Post M, Lubiński W, Śliwiak D, et al. XEN Gel Stent in the management of primary open-angle glaucoma. Doc Ophthalmol 2020;141(1):65–76. DOI: 10.1007/s10633-020-09753-4
Gillmann K, Bravetti GE, Rao HL, et al. Combined and stand-alone XEN 45 gel stent implantation: 3-year outcomes and success predictors. Acta ophthalmologica 2021;99:(4):e531–e539. DOI: 10.1111/aos.14605
Lavin-Dapena C, Cordero-Ros R, D'Anna O, et al. XEN 63 gel stent device in glaucoma surgery: A 5-years follow-up prospective study Controlled Clinical Trial 2020;31(4):1829–1835. DOI: 10.1177/1120672120952033
Lenzhofer M, Kersten-Gomez I, Sheybani A, et al. Four-year results of a minimally invasive transscleral glaucoma gel stent implantation in a prospective multi-centre study. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2019;47(5):581–587. DOI: 10.1111/ceo.13463
Busch T, Skiljic D, Rudolph T, et al. Learning Curve and One-Year Outcome of XEN 45 Gel Stent Implantation in a Swedish Population. Clin ophthalmol 2020;14:3719–3733. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S267010
Ibáñez-Muñoz A, Soto-Biforcos VS, Rodríguez-Vicente L, et al. XEN implant in primary and secondary open-angle glaucoma: A 12-month retrospective study. Eur J ophthalmol 2020;30(5):1034–1041. DOI: 10.1177/1120672119845226
Laborda-Guirao T, Cubero-Parra JM, Hidalgo-Torres A. Efficacy and safety of XEN 45 gel stent alone or in combination with phacoemulsification in advanced open angle glaucoma patients: 1-year retrospective study. Int J Ophthalmol 2020;13(8):1250–1256. DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2020.08.11
Marcos Parra MT, Salinas López JA, López Grau NS, et al. XEN implant device versus trabeculectomy, either alone or in combination with phacoemulsification, in open-angle glaucoma patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2019;257(8):1741–1750. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-019-04341-y
Wang B, Leng X, An X, et al. XEN gel implant with or without phacoemulsification for glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Transl Med 2020;8(20):1309. DOI: 10.21037/atm-20-6354
José P, Teixeira FJ, Barão RC, et al. Needling after XEN gel implant: What's the efficacy? A 1-year analysis. Eur J Ophthalmol 2021;31(6):3087–3092. DOI: 10.1177/1120672120963447
Karimi A, Lindfield D, Turnbull A, et al. A multi-centre interventional case series of 259 ab-interno Xen gel implants for glaucoma, with and without combined cataract surgery. Eye (Lond) 2019;33(3):469–477. DOI: 10.1038/s41433-018-0243-8
Widder RA, Dietlein TS, Dinslage S, et al. The XEN45 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 2018;256(4):765–771. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-018-3899-7
