4.3 Article

Choroidal Detachment after XEN Gel Stent Implantation

Journal

JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 2021, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2021/6674505

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to estimate the incidence of choroidal detachment (CD) after XEN gel stent surgery and found that older age, lower postoperative intraocular pressure (IOP), and higher number of preoperative IOP-lowering drugs were significantly associated with CD development.
Background. The purpose of this study is to estimate the incidence of choroidal detachment (CD) after XEN gel stent implant surgery and to evaluate the associated factors. Methods. We reviewed the clinical charts of 126 patients who underwent XEN implantation between March 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018 at the University Eye Clinic of Genoa. Ocular, demographics, and perioperative factor were registered and analysed. Univariate and multivariate logistic analysis were performed to investigate factors associated with CD occurrence. Results. Of the 126 patients, 25 (19.8%) developed a choroidal detachment after XEN gel stent implant surgery. The mean period between surgery and CD detection was 5.84 +/- 1.77 days. The mean intraocular pressure (IOP) at the time of CD diagnosis was 6.4 +/- 3.1 mmHg. Age (OR = 1.10, p < 0.019), early postoperative TOP (OR = 0.70, p < 0.001), and number of preoperative TOP-lowering drugs (OR = 5.70, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with CD presence. Complete resolution was observed in all the cases. Wide-field imaging and ultrasonography were useful tools to diagnose and follow up CD until resolution. Conclusions. When carefully investigated, CD is a relatively common complication after XEN gel stent implant procedure. Older age, lower postoperative TOP, and higher number of preoperative TOP-lowering drugs were significantly associated with the development of CD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available