XEN-45 Gel Stent implant in glaucoma treatment

Close metadata

Recommended articles:

The relationship between intraocular pressure and age-related variations in ocular rigidity. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;(3):11-18

Comparative evaluation of transscleral laser exposure in anatomical experiment. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;(3):19-26

Three-component tear substitute as preoperative support in glaucoma surgery. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;(3):51-58

First experience of implantation of extended depth of focus intraocular lenses in patients with glaucoma. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;(3):70-74

Application of artificial intelligence in glaucoma. Part 1. Neural networks and deep learning in glaucoma screening and diagnosis. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;(3):82-87

Efficacy of drainage implants in combined cataract and glaucoma surgery. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;(4):33-39

Application of artificial intelligence in glaucoma. Part 2. Neural networks and machine learning in the monitoring and treatment of glaucoma. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;(4):80-85

Approaches for improvement of ocular surface condition in primary open-angle glaucoma. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;(5):7-16

Perioperative prevention of bleeding in glaucoma surgery. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;(5):118-124

The results of fistulizing glaucoma surgeries in pseudophackic patients. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2025;(1):45-52

The XEN-45 drainage implant is a hypotensive device made of hydrophilic gelatin and stabilized by glutaraldehyde. The implant is designed for modern Microinvasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS). Being installed ab interno, the stent drains aqueous fluid from the anterior chamber into the subconjunctival space. According to indications, XEN-45 can be used in treatment of primary open angle glaucoma, pseudoexfoliation or pigment glaucoma with uncompensated intraocular pressure amid maximum tolerated hypotensive therapy, and refractory glaucoma including cases with history of unsuccessful surgery. The implant can also be effectively used in combination with phacoemulsification. The article describes the structure and implantation process of the XEN drainage and reviews existing clinical trials on its effectiveness. The article also presents results on hypotensive efficacy of the implant, as well as characteristics and complications of postoperative management.

Keywords:

glaucoma

XEN

gelatin drainage

microinvasive glaucoma surgery

Authors:

Petrov S.Iu.

FGBU "NII glaznykh bolezneĭ" RAMN

Volzhanin A.V.

Research Institute of Eye Diseases, 11, A, B, Rossolimo St., Moscow, Russian Federation, 119021

List of references:

Watson PG, Jakeman C, Ozturk M, Barnett MF, Barnett F, Khaw KT. The complications of trabeculectomy (a 20-year follow-up). Eye (Lond). 1990;4(3):425-438. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1990.54
Olayanju JA, Hassan MB, Hodge DO, Khanna CL. Trabeculectomy-related complications in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1985 through 2010. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(5):574-580. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.57
Chaudhry M, Grover S, Baisakhiya S, Bajaj A, Bhatia MS. Artificial drainage devices for glaucoma surgery: an overview. Nepal J Ophthalmol. 2012;4(2):295-302. https://doi.org/10.3126/nepjoph.v4i2.6547
Nardi M, Posarelli C, Nasini F, Figus M. Mini Drainage Devices for Anterior and Intermediate Filtration. Dev Ophthalmol. 2017;59:90-99. https://doi.org/10.1159/000458489
Green W, Lind JT, Sheybani A. Review of the Xen Gel Stent and InnFocus MicroShunt. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2018;29(2):162-170. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000000462
Reddy N, Reddy R, Jiang Q. Crosslinking biopolymers for biomedical applications. Trends Biotechnol. 2015;33(6):362-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.03.008
Yu DY, Morgan WH, Sun X, Su EN, Cringle SJ, Yu PK, House P, Guo W, Yu X. The critical role of the conjunctiva in glaucoma filtration surgery. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2009;28(5):303-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2009.06.004
Lewis RA. Ab interno approach to the subconjunctival space using a collagen glaucoma stent. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40(8):1301-1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.01.032
Shute TS, Dietrich UM, Baker JF, Carmichael KP, Wustenberg W, Ahmed II, Sheybani A. Biocompatibility of a Novel Microfistula Implant in Nonprimate Mammals for the Surgical Treatment of Glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57(8):3594-3600. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.16-19453
Sheybani A, Reitsamer H, Ahmed II. Fluid Dynamics of a Novel Micro-Fistula Implant for the Surgical Treatment of Glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56(8):4789-4795. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.15-16625
De Gregorio A, Pedrotti E, Stevan G, Bertoncello A, Morselli S. 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. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S146919
Al Habash A, Aljasim LA, Owaidhah O, Edward DP. A review of the efficacy of mitomycin C in glaucoma filtration surgery. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:1945-1951. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S80111
Barton K, Chelvin S, Vanessa V. XEN45™ Implantation for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: One-Year Results of a Multicenter Study. European Glaucoma Society Meeting Prague, Czech Republic June 19—22, 2016.
De Gregorio A, Pedrotti E, Russo L, Morselli S. Minimally invasive combined glaucoma and cataract surgery: clinical results of the smallest ab interno gel stent. Int Ophthalmol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0571-x
Perez-Torregrosa VT, Olate-Perez A, Cerda-Ibanez M, Gargallo-Benedicto A, Osorio-Alayo V, Barreiro-Rego A, Duch-Samper A. Combined phacoemulsification and XEN45 surgery from a temporal approach and 2 incisions. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2016;91(9):415-421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oftal.2016.02.006
Olate-Perez A, Perez-Torregrosa VT, Gargallo-Benedicto A, Neira-Ibanez P, Cerda-Ibanez M, Osorio-Alayo V, Barreiro-Rego A, Duch-Samper A. Prospective study of filtering blebs after XEN45 surgery. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2017;92(8):366-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oftal.2017.02.010
Fea AM, Spinetta R, Cannizzo PML, Consolandi G, Lavia C, Aragno V, Germinetti F, Rolle T. Evaluation of Bleb Morphology and Reduction in IOP and Glaucoma Medication following Implantation of a Novel Gel Stent. J Ophthalmol. 2017;9364910. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9364910
Schlenker MB, Gulamhusein H, Conrad-Hengerer I, Somers A, Lenzhofer M, Stalmans I, Reitsamer H, Hengerer FH, Ahmed IIK. Efficacy, Safety, and Risk Factors for Failure of Standalone Ab Interno Gelatin Microstent Implantation versus Standalone Trabeculectomy. Ophthalmology. 2017;124(11):1579-1588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.05.004.
Kirwan J, Lockwood A, Shah P, Broadway D, McNaught A, King A. Re: Schlenker et al. Efficacy, safety, and risk factors for failure of standalone ab interno gelatin microstent implantation versus standalone trabeculectomy. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(4):25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.11.028
Masood I, Sigona M, Pajaujis M. Re: Schlenker et al.: Efficacy, safety, and risk factors for failure of standalone ab interno gelatin microstent implantation versus standalone trabeculectomy. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(2):16-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.09.011
Grover DS, Flynn WJ, Bashford KP, Lewis RA, Duh YJ, Nangia RS, Niksch B. Performance and Safety of a New Ab Interno Gelatin Stent in Refractory Glaucoma at 12 Months. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;183:25-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2017.07.023
Galal A, Bilgic A, Eltanamly R, Osman A. XEN Glaucoma Implant with Mitomycin C 1-Year Follow-Up: Result and Complications. J Ophthalmol. 2017;5457246. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5457246
Prokosch-Willing V, Vossmerbaeumer U, Hoffmann E, Pfeiffer N. Suprachoroidal Bleeding After XEN Gel Implantation. J Glaucoma. 2017;26(12):261-263. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000795
Szigiato AA, Sandhu S, Ratnarajan G, Dorey MW, Ahmed IIK. Surgeon perspectives on learning ab-interno gelatin microstent implantation. Can J Ophthalmol. 2018;53(3):246-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2017.10.005

Close metadata