Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Xen 63 versus Preserflo MicroShunt implant in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Xen 63 versus Preserflo MicroShunt implant in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma
Do you wish to request the book?
Xen 63 versus Preserflo MicroShunt implant in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Xen 63 versus Preserflo MicroShunt implant in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma
2025
Overview
This study compared the efficacy safety profiles of the Xen 63 and Preserflo MicroShunt devices, both standalone, in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). It is a retrospective and single-center study conducted on consecutive on patients with medically uncontrolled POAG who underwent either a standalone Xen 63 or a standalone Preserflo and had a 12-month follow-up visit. The primary outcome was the mean IOP at month-12. Sixty eyes were included, 30 eyes in each Xen 63 and Preserflo groups, respectively. Preoperative IOP was significantly lowered from 20.8 ± 3.6 mmHg and 19.1 ± 3.8 mmHg to 14.2 ± 4.5 mmHg and 12.8 ± 2.3 mmHg in the Xen 63 and Preserflo groups, respectively (
p
< 0.0001 each, respectively); without significant differences between groups (
p
= 0.1346). Preoperative number of ocular-hypotensive drugs was significantly reduced from 2.3 ± 0.6 to 0.2 ± 06 drugs and from 2.3 ± 0.7 to 0.3 ± 0.6 drugs, in the Xen 63 and Preserflo groups, respectively (
p
< 0.0001 each, respectively); without significant differences between groups (
p
= 0.5212). Regarding safety, one (3.3%) eye in the Preserflo group required a device removal due to maculopathy. Three (10.0%) eyes in the Xen 63 group underwent needling. In conclusion, both the Xen 63 and the Preserflo devices effectively and safely reduced IOP and the requirement for IOP-lowering medications, exhibiting comparable IOP levels after 12 months.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group UK,Nature Publishing Group,Nature Portfolio
Subject
