Journal of Current Glaucoma Practice

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2021 ) > List of Articles

CASE REPORT

Late-onset Endophthalmitis after XEN45® Implantation: A Retrospective Case Series and Literature Review

Raquel Burggraaf-Sánchez de las Matas, Laura Such-Irusta, Enrique A Alfonso-Muñoz, Héctor Mascarós-Mena, Aitor Lanzagorta-Aresti, Jorge Mataix-Boronat, Carolina Font-Julià

Citation Information : de las Matas RB, Such-Irusta L, Alfonso-Muñoz EA, Mascarós-Mena H, Lanzagorta-Aresti A, Mataix-Boronat J, Font-Julià C. Late-onset Endophthalmitis after XEN45® Implantation: A Retrospective Case Series and Literature Review. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2021; 15 (3):153-160.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1316

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 27-01-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim and objective: To report the incidence of late-onset endophthalmitis following XEN45® stent implantation. Background: Long-term safety profile and efficacy in relation to the so-called microinvasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) techniques are still under evaluation. The XEN45® gel stent entails a bleb formation and often requires postoperative conjunctival management, differing from the current reviewed concept of minimally invasive procedures. Endophthalmitis has been described among the complications, triggered in the majority of cases by tube extrusion. Cases description: From our chart of 293 eyes operated on between November 2016 and November 2019, five (1.7%) patients developed endophthalmitis, which took place in the months 3, 4, 5, 11, and 14 after surgery, respectively. Sixty percent had undergone previous needling procedures. All of them showed a previous flat bleb and developed perforation of the conjunctiva caused by the distal portion of the tube. One patient was early eviscerated due to a fateful course. Treatment consisted of intravitreal, oral, and topical antibiotics, as well as topical corticosteroids. Eighty percent underwent device withdrawal, conjunctival gap suturing, anterior chamber washout, aqueous humor (AH) tab extraction (one positive for S. epidermidis and one for Streptococcus agalactiae), and pars plana vitrectomy. A second patient was eviscerated due to phthisis bulbi. Out of three remaining patients, one underwent vitrectomy for retinal detachment, while two patients required glaucoma surgery for intraocular pressure control. The final VA was ≤20/125 in all patients. Conclusion: The XEN45® device appears to trigger endophthalmitis by extruding the stent or unnoticed leakage through conjunctival defects. Special attention should be paid to flat and avascular blebs. Clinical significance: This series shows a higher rate of endophthalmitis (1.7%) compared with previous studies with a significant sample size (0.4–1.4%).


HTML PDF Share
  1. Achiron A, Sharif N, Achiron RNO, et al. Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery. Harefuah 2014;153(10):625–685.
  2. Richter GM, Coleman AL. Minimally invasive glaucoma surgery: Current status and future prospects. Clin Ophthalmol 2016;10:189–206. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S80490.
  3. Nichani P, Popovic MM, Schlenker MB, et al. Microinvasive glaucoma surgery: a review of 3476 eyes. Surv Ophthalmol 2021;66(5):714–742. DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2020.09.005.
  4. Fea AM, Durr GM, Marolo P, et al. Xen® gel stent: a comprehensive review on its use as a treatment option for refractory glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol 2020;14:1805–1832. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S178348.
  5. 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 2019;33(3):469–477. DOI: 10.1038/s41433-018-0243-8.
  6. 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.
  7. Lenzhofer M, Strohmaier C, Sperl P, et al. Effect of the outer stent position on efficacy after minimally invasive transscleral glaucoma gel stent implantation. Acta Ophthalmol 2019;97(8):e1105–e1111. DOI: 10.1111/aos.14167.
  8. Galal A, Bilgic A, Eltanamly R, et al. XEN glaucoma implant with mitomycin C 1-year follow-up: result and complications. J Ophthalmol 2017. 545–546. DOI: 10.1155/2017/5457246.
  9. Schlenker MB, Gulamhusein H, Conrad-Hengerer I, et al. Efficacy, safety, and risk factors for failure of standalone ab interno gelatin microstent implantation versus standalone trabeculectomy. Ophthalmology 2017;124(11):1579–1588. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.05.004.
  10. 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.
  11. 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. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2018;256(4):765–771. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-018-3899-7.
  12. Mansouri K, Guidotti J, Rao HL, et al. Prospective evaluation of standalone XEN gel implant and combined phacoemulsification-XEN gel implant surgery: 1-year results. J Glaucoma 2018;27(2):140–147. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000858.
  13. Kalenak JW. Performance and safety of a new ab interno gelatin stent in refractory glaucoma at 12 months. Am J Ophthalmol 2018;188:185–186. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.01.031.
  14. De Gregorio A, Pedrotti E, Stevan G, et al. XEN glaucoma treatment system in the management of refractory glaucomas: a short review on trial data and potential role in clinical practice. Clin Ophthalmol 2018;12:773–782. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S146919.
  15. 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. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2019;257(5):983–996. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-019-04251-z.
  16. Smith M, Charles R, Abdel-Hay A, et al. Performance and safety of a new ab interno gelatin stent in refractory glaucoma at 12 months. J Glaucoma 2019;33(5):983–996.
  17. 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.
  18. Smith M, Charles R, Abdel-Hay A, et al. 1-year outcomes of the Xen45 glaucoma implant. Eye 2019;33(5):761–766. DOI: 10.1038/s41433-018-0310-1.
  19. García-Feijóo J, Larrosa JM, Martínez-de-la-Casa JM, et al. Redefiniendo la cirugía de glaucoma mínimamente invasiva. Cirugía mínimamente penetrante. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 2018;93(4):157–159. DOI: 10.1016/j.oftal.2017.11.005.
  20. European Glaucoma Society Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma, 5th ed., Chapter 3: Treatment principles and options Supported by the EGS Foundation. 2020.
  21. Lim R, Lim KS. XEN implant-related endophthalmitis. Ophthalmology 2018;125(2):209. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.10.019.
  22. Karri B, Gupta C, Mathews D. Endophthalmitis following XEN stent exposure. J Glaucoma 2018;27(10):931–933. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001012.
  23. Lapira M, Cronbach N, Shaikh A. Extrusion and breakage of XEN gel stent resulting in endophthalmitis. J Glaucoma 2018;27(10):934–935. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001058.
  24. Napoli L, Riva I, Oddone F, et al. A rare case of endophthalmitis after bleb needle revision for glaucoma Xen® gel stent. Eur J Ophthalmol 2019. 2–5.
  25. Kerr NM, Wang J, Sandhu A, et al. Ab interno gel implant–associated bleb-related infection. Am J Ophthalmol 2018;189:96–101. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.02.014.
  26. Buffault J, Baudouin C, Labbé A. Is the Xen® gel stent really minimally invasive? Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep 2020;19:100850. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajoc.2020.100850.
  27. Olgun A, Imamoğlu S, Karapapak M, et al. Endophthalmitis after XEN gel stent implantation: 2 cases. J Glaucoma 2018;27(12):E191–E194. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001076.
  28. Moussaoui LE, Djalali-Talab Y, Walter P, et al. Endophthalmitis nach bindehautperforation eines glaukom-gelstentimplantates [endophthalmitis after perforation of the conjunctiva by a glaucoma gel-stent implant]. Ophthalmologe 2020;117(12):1229–1233. DOI: 10.1007/s00347-020-01077-7.
  29. Vaziri K, Kishor K, Schwartz SG, et al. Incidence of bleb-associated endophthalmitis in the United States. Clin Ophthalmol 2015;9:317–322. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S75286.
  30. Greenfield DS, Suñer IJ, Miller MP, et al. Endophthalmitis after filtering surgery with mitomycin. Arch Ophthalmol 1996;114(8):943–949. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.1996.01100140151007.
  31. Rai P, Kotecha A, Kaltsos K, et al. Changing trends in the incidence of bleb-related infection in trabeculectomy. Br J Ophthalmol 2012;96(7):971–975. DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300926.
  32. Kwon HJ, Kumar H, Green CM, et al. Bleb-associated endophthalmitis: proportion, presentation, management and outcomes in Victoria, Australia. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2019;47(5):588–597. DOI: 10.1111/ceo.13477.
  33. Gedde SJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, et al. Postoperative complications in the tube versus trabeculectomy (TVT) study during five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol 2012;153(5):804–814. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.10.024.
  34. Linton E, Au L. Technique of Xen implant revision surgery and the surgical outcomes: a retrospective interventional case series. Ophthalmol Ther 2020;9(1):149–157. DOI: 10.1007/s40123-020- 00234-0.
  35. 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.
  36. Başer EF, Seymenoğlu RG. Results of fluorouracil-augmented Xen45 implantation in primary open-angle and pseudoexfoliation glaucoma. Int Ophthalmol 2021;41(3):945–955. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-020-01650-8.
  37. Gedde SJ, Scott IU, Tabandeh H, et al. Late endophthalmitis associated with glaucoma drainage implants. Ophthalmology 2001;108(7):1323–1327. DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00598-x.
  38. Al-Torbak AA, Al-Shahwan S, Al-Jadaan I, et al. Endophthalmitis associated with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89(4):454–458. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2004.049015.
  39. Colás-Tomás T, Pérez-Trigo S. Delayed-onset endophthalmitis following implantation of a XEN45 glaucoma device: a case report. J Glaucoma 2018;27(10):936–938. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000 001064.
  40. 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;13:679–684. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S195457.
  41. Yamamoto T, Kuwayama Y, Kano K, et al. Clinical features of bleb-related infection: a 5-year survey in Japan. Acta Ophthalmol 2013;91(7):619–624. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.02480.x.
  42. Results of the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study. A randomized trial of immediate vitrectomy and of intravenous antibiotics for the treatment of postoperative bacterial endophthalmitis. Endophthalmitis vitrectomy study group. Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113(12):1479–1496. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.1995.0110012 0009001.
  43. Kuhn F, Gini G. Complete and early vitrectomy for endophthalmitis (CEVE) as today's alternative to the endophthalmitis vitrectomy study. In: Kirchhof B, Wong D, et al. Vitreo-retinal surgery. Essentials in ophthalmology. 1st ed., Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2007. pp. 53–68.
  44. Al-Turki TA, Al-Shahwan S, Al-Mezaine HS, et al. Microbiology and visual outcome of bleb-associated endophthalmitis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 2010;18(2):121–126. DOI: 10.3109/09273940903370730.
  45. Ohtomo K, Mayama C, Ueta T, et al. Outcomes of late-onset bleb-related endophthalmitis treated with pars plana vitrectomy. J Ophthalmol 2015;2015:923857. DOI: 10.1155/2015/923857.
  46. Negretti GS, Chan W, Pavesio C, et al. Vitrectomy for endophthalmitis: 5-year study of outcomes and complications. BMJ Open Ophthalmol 2020;5(1):1–8. DOI: 10.1136/bmjophth-2019-000423.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.