This retrospective cohort study evaluates early intraocular pressure control in fellow eyes after XEN®45 implantation, suggesting tailored management strategies.
To evaluate inter-eye differences in efficacy, safety, and prognostic indicators between the first-operated and fellow eyes in patients undergoing bilateral XEN®45 gel stent implantation, with particular focus on early intraocular pressure control, intervention timing, and the influence of first-eye outcomes on the second eye. A retrospective cohort study. This single-center retrospective study analyzed 34 eyes of 17 consecutive patients who underwent bilateral XEN®45 implantation. We compared the baseline data and postoperative outcomes of the first-operated eyes vs. the fellow eyes. The primary outcome in the study was the clinical success rate (complete: IOP 6–18 mmHg without medications; qualified: IOP 6–18 mmHg with/without medications). The baseline characteristics of the first-operated and fellow eyes were comparable, with no significant differences in intraocular pressure (22.7 ± 9.2 mmHg vs. 22.4 ± 9.6 mmHg, P = 0.904) or the number of IOP-lowering medications used (3.6 ± 0.9 vs. 3.3 ± 0.8, P = 0.056). The fellow eyes showed numerically higher IOP but the difference was not statistically significant at 3 months (17.2 ± 7.1 vs. 13.9 ± 3.6 mmHg, P = 0.101). The fellow eyes required earlier first needling interventions (2.7 ± 1.8 vs. 3.6 ± 4.4 months, P = 0.041) and showed a numerically higher, though non-significant, surgical bleb revision rate (41.1% vs. 11.7%, P = 0.125). At final follow-up, complete (73.5% vs. 70.6%) and qualified (85.3% vs. 82.4%) success rates were statistically equivalent. Success of the fellow eye was significantly associated with success of the first-operated eye (P = 0.047, OR = 21.5). While bilateral XEN®45 implantation achieves comparable final success rates in both eyes, fellow eyes show signs of earlier fibrosis and intervention needs, highlighting a “fellow-eye effect” and the importance of individualized management for the second eye.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ding et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: