Efficacy, Confounders and Safety of the Preserflo Microshunt

Abstract

Background Glaucoma is a leading cause of blindness worldwide. We evaluated the efficacy, confounders, and safety of the Preserflo Microshunt over a one-year follow-up period.

Methods In this retrospective monocentric study, 111 eyes were evaluated. 83 eyes had primary open angle glaucoma, and 28 eyes secondary open angle glaucoma. Intraocular pressure (IOP), visual acuity, number of glaucoma medications, complications, and reoperations were evaluated postoperatively, at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The influence of age, sex, type of glaucoma, previous surgery and lens status was also analysed. Bleb revision was indicated if corrected IOP exceeded 18 mmHg.

Results Intraocular pressure significantly decreased from 24.50 ± 8.94 to 14.62 ± 4.86 mmHg (4 – 32 mmHg; p < 0.001), the number of medications from 3.19 ± 1.14 to 0.98 ± 1.39 (0 – 4; p < 0.001). Confounders of interest did not affect efficacy. Bleb revision was performed in 22.5% of eyes and a cyclophotocoagulation was performed in 9.9% of eyes. Complete surgical success (IOP ≤ 17 mmHg, IOP reduction ≥ 20%, without medication) was achieved in 36.9% (n = 41) and qualified success (with medication) in 51.4% (n = 57) of eyes. Transient hypotension (≤ 5 mmHg) occurred in 19.8% after primary implantation and in 1.8% after bleb revision (duration ≤ 3 months).

Conclusion To date, the Preserflo Microshunt has demonstrated good efficacy and a low risk profile.

Keywords

Aqueous drainage devices - open-angle glaucoma - Preserflo - bleb - intraocular pressure - MIGS

Publication History

Received: 30 January 2024

Accepted: 12 May 2024

Article published online:
24 July 2024

• References/Literatur

• 1 Lang GK. Hrsg. Augenheilkunde. 6. überarbeitete Aufl.. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2019
• 2 Allison K, Patel D, Alabi O. Epidemiology of Glaucoma: The Past, Present, and Predictions for the Future. Cureus; 12. e11686
• 3 [Anonymous] European Glaucoma Society Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma, 4th Edition – Chapter 2: Classification and Terminology Supported by the EGS Foundation: Part 1: Foreword; Introduction; Glossary; Chapter 2 Classification and Terminology. Br J Ophthalmol 2017; 101: 73-127
• 4 Leydhecker W. Glaukom in der Praxis; ein Leitfaden. 2., völlig neubearbeitete Aufl. Berlin, New York: Springer; 1973
• 5 Kanski JJ, Burk A, Burk R. Kapitel 13: Glaukom. In: Klinische Ophthalmologie. 6. Aufl.. München: Urban & Fischer in Elsevier; 2008: 377-449
• 6 Krieglstein GK. Hrsg. Glaukom 2007: Die Papille beim Glaukom. Heidelberg: Springer Medizin; 2008
• 7 Cairns JE. Trabeculectomy. Preliminary report of a new method. Am J Ophthalmol 1968; 66: 673-679
• 8 Hoskins H, Migliazzo C. Die Argon-Laserbehandlung der Filterkisseninsuffizienz. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 1989; 195: 328-329
• 9 Pinchuk L, Riss I, Batlle JF. et al. The use of poly(styrene-block-isobutylene-block-styrene) as a microshunt to treat glaucoma. Regen Biomater 2016; 3: 137-142
• 10 Sadruddin O, Pinchuk L, Angeles R. et al. Ab externo implantation of the MicroShunt, a poly (styrene-block-isobutylene-block-styrene) surgical device for the treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma: a review. Eye Vis (Lond) 2019; 6: 36
• 11 Pinchuk L. A review of the biostability and carcinogenicity of polyurethanes in medicine and the new generation of “biostable” polyurethanes. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 1994; 6: 225-267
• 12 Arrieta EA, Aly M, Parrish R. et al. Clinicopathologic Correlations of Poly-(styrene-b-isobutylene-b-styrene) Glaucoma Drainage Devices of Different Internal Diameters in Rabbits. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2011; 42: 338-345
• 13 Majoulet A, Scemla B, Hamard P. et al. Safety and Efficacy of the Preserflo^® Microshunt in Refractory Glaucoma: A One-Year Study. J Clin Med 2022; 11: 7086
• 14 Beckers HJM, Aptel F, Webers CAB. et al. Safety and Effectiveness of the PRESERFLO^® MicroShunt in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma. Results from a 2-Year Multicenter Study. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 2022; 5: 195-209
• 15 Bhayani R, Martínez de la Casa JM, Figus M. et al. Short-term safety and efficacy of Preserflo^™ Microshunt in glaucoma patients: a multicentre retrospective cohort study. Eye (Lond) 2023; 37: 644-649
• 16 Fili S, Kontopoulou K, Vastardis I. et al. PreserFlo^™ microshunt combined with phacoemulsification versus Preserflo^™ MicroShunt as a standalone procedure in patients with medically resistant open-angle glaucoma. J Curr Ophthalmol 2022; 34: 180-186
• 17 Ibarz Barberá M, Martínez-Galdón F, Caballero-Magro E. et al. Efficacy and Safety of the Preserflo Microshunt With Mitomycin C for the Treatment of Open Angle Glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2022; 31: 557-566
• 18 Batlle JF, Fantes F, Riss I. et al. Three-Year Follow-up of a Novel Aqueous Humor MicroShunt. J Glaucoma 2016; 25: e58-e65
• 19 Durr GM, Schlenker MB, Samet S. et al. One-year outcomes of stand-alone ab externo SIBS microshunt implantation in refractory glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2022; 106: 71-79
• 20 Fili S, Kontopoulou K, Vastardis I. et al. PreserFlo^™ MicroShunt Versus Trabeculectomy in Patients With Moderate to Advanced Open-Angle Glaucoma: 12-Month Follow-Up of a Single-Center Prospective Study. Cureus 2022; 14: e28288
• 21 Quaranta L, Micheletti E, Carassa R. et al. Efficacy and Safety of PreserFlo^® MicroShunt After a Failed Trabeculectomy in Eyes with Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Retrospective Study. Adv Ther 2021; 38: 4403-4412
• 22 Baker ND, Barnebey HS, Moster MR. et al. Ab-Externo MicroShunt versus Trabeculectomy in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: One-Year Results from a 2-Year Randomized, Multicenter Study. Ophthalmology 2021; 128: 1710-1721
• 23 Rabiolo A, Toscani R, Sacchi M. et al. Risk Factors for Failure in Glaucoma Patients undergoing Microshunt Implantantion. Am J Ophthalmol 2024; 259: 117-130
• 24 Schlenker MB, Armstrong JJ, De Francesco T. et al. All Consecutive Ab Externo SIBS Microshunt Implantations With Mitomycin C: One-Year Outcomes and Risk Factors for Failure. Am J Ophthalmol 2023; 255: 125-140
• 25 Fea AM, Laffi GL, Martini E. et al. Effectiveness of MicroShunt in Patients with Primary Open-Angle and Pseudoexfoliative Glaucoma: A Retrospective European Multicenter Study. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 2022; 5: 210-218
• 26 Nobl M, Freissinger S, Kassumeh S. et al. One-year outcomes of microshunt implantation in pseudoexfoliation glaucoma. PLoS One 2021; 16: e0256670 Verfügbar unter: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256670
• 27 Engeland CG, Sabzehei B, Marucha PT. Sex hormones and mucosal wound healing. Brain Behav Immun 2009; 23: 629-635
• 28 Scheres LMJ, Kujovic-Aleksov S, Ramdas WD. et al. XEN^® Gel Stent compared to PRESERFLO^™ MicroShunt implantation for primary open‐angle glaucoma: two‐year results. Acta Ophthalmol 2021; 99: e433-e440
• 29 Fu MX, Normando EM, Luk SMH. et al. MicroShunt versus Trabeculectomy for Surgical Management of Glaucoma: A Retrospective Analysis. J Clin Med 2022; 11: 5481
• 30 Trigaux C, Steindor FA, Spaniol K. et al. Iris Obstruction Following PRESERFLO Microshunt Implantation and Surgical Management. J Glaucoma 2022; 31: e72-e74