Minimalnie inwazyjna chirurgia jaskry (MIGS): implant XEN
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Opublikowane:
mar 31, 2019
Słowa kluczowe:
jaskra, minimalnie inwazyjna jaskry, implant XEN
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstrakt
Pomimo nieustannego rozwoju medycyny jedyną możliwością leczenia jaskry jest obniżanie ciśnienia wewnątrzgałkowego. Spośród dostępnych możliwości terapeutycznych chirurgia filtracyjna charakteryzuje się wysoką skutecznością stosowanych procedur, ale też niskim profilem bezpieczeństwa. Zastosowanie coraz bardziej popularnych technik minimalnie inwazyjnych stwarza nadzieję na uzyskanie ciśnienia docelowego przy mniejszej liczbie powikłań. Implant XEN® jest stentem, który naśladując zasadę trabekulektomii, tj. wytwarzając filtrację podspojówkową, pozwala osiągnąć skuteczną redukcję ciśnienia wewnątrzgałkowego przy zachowaniu wysokiego profilu bezpieczeństwa.
Pobrania
Dane pobrania nie są jeszcze dostepne
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Jak cytować
1.
Pożarowska D, Żarnowski T. Minimalnie inwazyjna chirurgia jaskry (MIGS): implant XEN. Ophthatherapy [Internet]. 31 marzec 2019 [cytowane 25 listopad 2024];6(1):18-3. Dostępne na: https://journalsmededu.pl/index.php/ophthatherapy/article/view/505
Numer
Dział
Artykuły
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Użycie niekomercyjne – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
Copyright: © Medical Education sp. z o.o. License allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Address reprint requests to: Medical Education, Marcin Kuźma (marcin.kuzma@mededu.pl)
Bibliografia
1. Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY et al. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014; 121(11): 2081-90.
2. Europejskie Towarzystwo Jaskrowe. Zasady i metody leczenia. Terminologia i wytyczne postępowania w jaskrze. Wyd. IV. EGS 2016.
3. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B et al.; Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002; 120(10): 1268-79.
4. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ et al.; Tube versus Trabeculectomy Study Group. Treatment outcomes in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) study after five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012; 153(5): 789-803.e2.
5. Chaudhary A, Salinas L, Guidotti J et al. XEN Gel Implant: a new surgical approach in glaucoma. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018; 15(1): 47-59.
6. Gedde SJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD et al.; Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study Group. Postoperative complications in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) study during five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012; 153(5): 804-14.e1.
7. Kerr NM, Wang J, Barton K. Minimally invasive glaucoma surgery as primary stand-alone surgery for glaucoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017; 45(4): 393-400.
8. Pillunat LE, Erb C, Jünemann AG et al. Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS): a review of surgical procedures using stents. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017; 11: 1583-600.
9. Lavia C, Dallorto L, Maule M et al. Minimally-invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS) for open angle glaucoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017; 12(8): e0183142.
10. Chatzara A, Chronopoulou I, Theodossiadis G et al. XEN Implant for Glaucoma Treatment: A Review of the Literature. Semin Ophthalmol. 2019; 34(2): 93-7.
11. Midha N, Rao HL, Mermoud A et al. Identifying the predictors of needling after XEN gel implant. Eye (Lond). 2019; 33(3): 353-7.
12. Yadav KS, Sharma S. Implantable drainage devices in glaucoma: Quo vadis? Eur J Pharm Sci. 2019; 133: 1-7.
13. Lenzhofer M, Strohmaier C, Hohensinn M et al. Longitudinal bleb morphology in anterior segment OCT after minimally invasive transscleral ab interno Glaucoma Gel Microstent implantation. Acta Ophthalmol. 2019; 97(2): e231-7.
14. Ibáñez-Muñoz A, Soto-Biforcos VS, Chacón-González M et al. One-year follow-up of the XEN® implant with mitomycin-C in pseudoexfoliative glaucoma patients. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2018: 1120672118795063.
15. Mansouri K, Gillmann K, Rao HL et al. Prospective Evaluation of XEN Gel Implant in Eyes With Pseudoexfoliative Glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2018; 27(10): 869-73.
16. Karimi A, Hopes M, Martin KR et al. Efficacy and Safety of the Ab-interno Xen Gel Stent After Failed Trabeculectomy. J Glaucoma. 2018; 27(10): 864-8.
17. Tailor R, Lalias T. A Case of Refractory Neovascular Glaucoma Treated With a XEN 45 Implant. J Glaucoma. 2018; 27(10): 929-30.
18. Marques RE, Ferreira NP, Sousa DC et al. Glaucoma Gel Implant Learning Curve in a Teaching Tertiary Hospital. J Glaucoma. 2019; 28(1): 56-60.
19. Arnould L, Theillac V, Moran S et al. Recurrent Exposure of XEN Gel Stent Implant and Conjunctival Erosion. J Glaucoma. 2019; 28(3): e37-40.
20. Montolío Marzo S, Lanzagorta Aresti A, Davó Cabrera JM et al. Malignant glaucoma after XEN45 implant. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2019; 94(3): 134-7.
21. 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 (Lond). 2019; 33(3): 469-77.
22. Olgun A, Imamoğlu S, Karapapak M et al. Endophthalmitis After XEN Gel Stent Implantation: 2 Cases. J Glaucoma. 2018; 27(12): e191-4.
23. Smith M, Charles R, Abdel-Hay A et al. 1-year outcomes of the Xen45 glaucoma implant. Eye (Lond). 2019; 33(5): 761-6.
24. 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): 140-7.
25. Galal A, Bilgic A, Eltanamly R et al. XEN Glaucoma Implant with Mitomycin C 1-Year Follow-Up: Result and Complications. J Ophthalmol. 2017; 2017: 5457246.
26. Reitsamer H, Sng C, Vera V et al.; Apex Study Group. Two-year results of a multicenter study of the ab interno gelatin implant in medically uncontrolled primary open-angle glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2019; 257(5): 983-96.
27. De Gregorio A, Pedrotti E, Russo L et al. Minimally invasive combined glaucoma and cataract surgery: clinical results of the smallest ab interno gel stent. Int Ophthalmol. 2018; 38(3): 1129-34.
28. 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): 1579-88.
29. Laroche D, Ng C, Lynch G. Baerveldt Attached to XEN: A New Technique to Manage Failed XEN Glaucoma Surgery. J Glaucoma. 2018; 27(4): 382-4.
30. Ansari E. An Update on Implants for Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS). Ophthalmol Ther. 2017; 6(2): 233-41.
2. Europejskie Towarzystwo Jaskrowe. Zasady i metody leczenia. Terminologia i wytyczne postępowania w jaskrze. Wyd. IV. EGS 2016.
3. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B et al.; Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002; 120(10): 1268-79.
4. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ et al.; Tube versus Trabeculectomy Study Group. Treatment outcomes in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) study after five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012; 153(5): 789-803.e2.
5. Chaudhary A, Salinas L, Guidotti J et al. XEN Gel Implant: a new surgical approach in glaucoma. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018; 15(1): 47-59.
6. Gedde SJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD et al.; Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study Group. Postoperative complications in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) study during five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012; 153(5): 804-14.e1.
7. Kerr NM, Wang J, Barton K. Minimally invasive glaucoma surgery as primary stand-alone surgery for glaucoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017; 45(4): 393-400.
8. Pillunat LE, Erb C, Jünemann AG et al. Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS): a review of surgical procedures using stents. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017; 11: 1583-600.
9. Lavia C, Dallorto L, Maule M et al. Minimally-invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS) for open angle glaucoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017; 12(8): e0183142.
10. Chatzara A, Chronopoulou I, Theodossiadis G et al. XEN Implant for Glaucoma Treatment: A Review of the Literature. Semin Ophthalmol. 2019; 34(2): 93-7.
11. Midha N, Rao HL, Mermoud A et al. Identifying the predictors of needling after XEN gel implant. Eye (Lond). 2019; 33(3): 353-7.
12. Yadav KS, Sharma S. Implantable drainage devices in glaucoma: Quo vadis? Eur J Pharm Sci. 2019; 133: 1-7.
13. Lenzhofer M, Strohmaier C, Hohensinn M et al. Longitudinal bleb morphology in anterior segment OCT after minimally invasive transscleral ab interno Glaucoma Gel Microstent implantation. Acta Ophthalmol. 2019; 97(2): e231-7.
14. Ibáñez-Muñoz A, Soto-Biforcos VS, Chacón-González M et al. One-year follow-up of the XEN® implant with mitomycin-C in pseudoexfoliative glaucoma patients. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2018: 1120672118795063.
15. Mansouri K, Gillmann K, Rao HL et al. Prospective Evaluation of XEN Gel Implant in Eyes With Pseudoexfoliative Glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2018; 27(10): 869-73.
16. Karimi A, Hopes M, Martin KR et al. Efficacy and Safety of the Ab-interno Xen Gel Stent After Failed Trabeculectomy. J Glaucoma. 2018; 27(10): 864-8.
17. Tailor R, Lalias T. A Case of Refractory Neovascular Glaucoma Treated With a XEN 45 Implant. J Glaucoma. 2018; 27(10): 929-30.
18. Marques RE, Ferreira NP, Sousa DC et al. Glaucoma Gel Implant Learning Curve in a Teaching Tertiary Hospital. J Glaucoma. 2019; 28(1): 56-60.
19. Arnould L, Theillac V, Moran S et al. Recurrent Exposure of XEN Gel Stent Implant and Conjunctival Erosion. J Glaucoma. 2019; 28(3): e37-40.
20. Montolío Marzo S, Lanzagorta Aresti A, Davó Cabrera JM et al. Malignant glaucoma after XEN45 implant. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2019; 94(3): 134-7.
21. 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 (Lond). 2019; 33(3): 469-77.
22. Olgun A, Imamoğlu S, Karapapak M et al. Endophthalmitis After XEN Gel Stent Implantation: 2 Cases. J Glaucoma. 2018; 27(12): e191-4.
23. Smith M, Charles R, Abdel-Hay A et al. 1-year outcomes of the Xen45 glaucoma implant. Eye (Lond). 2019; 33(5): 761-6.
24. 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): 140-7.
25. Galal A, Bilgic A, Eltanamly R et al. XEN Glaucoma Implant with Mitomycin C 1-Year Follow-Up: Result and Complications. J Ophthalmol. 2017; 2017: 5457246.
26. Reitsamer H, Sng C, Vera V et al.; Apex Study Group. Two-year results of a multicenter study of the ab interno gelatin implant in medically uncontrolled primary open-angle glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2019; 257(5): 983-96.
27. De Gregorio A, Pedrotti E, Russo L et al. Minimally invasive combined glaucoma and cataract surgery: clinical results of the smallest ab interno gel stent. Int Ophthalmol. 2018; 38(3): 1129-34.
28. 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): 1579-88.
29. Laroche D, Ng C, Lynch G. Baerveldt Attached to XEN: A New Technique to Manage Failed XEN Glaucoma Surgery. J Glaucoma. 2018; 27(4): 382-4.
30. Ansari E. An Update on Implants for Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS). Ophthalmol Ther. 2017; 6(2): 233-41.