Clinical Efficacy and Safety of the PAUL Glaucoma Implant: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- PMID: 41184105
- DOI: 10.1111/ceo.70019
Clinical Efficacy and Safety of the PAUL Glaucoma Implant: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Background: The PAUL glaucoma implant (PGI) is a novel valveless glaucoma drainage device featuring a large endplate surface area to enhance aqueous absorption, as well as a smaller internal and external tube diameter to minimise postoperative hypotony and corneal endothelial damage, particularly in eyes with refractory glaucoma. This is the first meta-analysis on the clinical efficacy and safety of the PGI.
Methods: Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases were searched for articles on the use of the PGI. A meta-analysis of single means and binary outcomes was conducted to assess clinical endpoints.
Results: A total of 15 studies with 640 eyes were analysed. At the 12 months postoperatively, the mean reduction in IOP and IOP-lowering medications from baseline were 16.11 mmHg (k = 13, n = 550, 95% CI: 12.91-19.31 mmHg, I2 = 96.10%, p < 0.001) and 2.34 (k = 12, n = 482, 95% CI: 1.99-2.69, I2 = 91.90%, p < 0.001), respectively. The mean complete and qualified success rates at 12 months postoperatively were 50.22% (k = 8, n = 209, 95% CI: 38.73%-61.70%, I2 = 80.30%) and 92.40% (k = 11, n = 490, 95% CI: 88.83%-95.40%, I2 = 41.40%), respectively. Postoperative complications such as hypotony (k = 13, n = 39, 6.05%, 95% CI: 2.81%-10.16%, I2 = 57.70%) and hyphema (k = 13, n = 33, 5.63%, 95% CI: 2.52%-9.61%, I2 = 56.60%) were uncommon, and sight-threatening complications such as corneal decompensation and endophthalmitis were rare. There was no statistically significant difference in mean visual acuity compared to baseline (k = 7, n = 312, MD: -0.03 logMAR, 95% CI: -0.09-0.04 logMAR, I2 = 0.00%, p = 0.43).
Conclusions: This meta-analysis provides quantitative evidence supporting the clinical efficacy and safety of the PGI in patients with refractory glaucoma.
Keywords: PAUL glaucoma implant; glaucoma; intraocular pressure; meta‐analysis; review.
© 2025 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists.
References
-
- J. K. Parihar, “Glaucoma: The ‘Black Hole’ of Irreversible Blindness,” Medical Journal, Armed Forces India 72, no. 1 (2016): 3–4, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2015.12.001.
-
- T. Sharaawy and S. Bhartiya, “Surgical Management of Glaucoma: Evolving Paradigms,” Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 59, no. Suppl 1 (2011): S123–S130, https://doi.org/10.4103/0301‐4738.73692.
-
- M. C. J. Tan, C. W. Ong, M. C. Aquino, et al., “Three‐Year Outcomes of the PAUL Glaucoma Implant for Treatment of Glaucoma,” Journal of Glaucoma 33, no. 7 (2024): 478–485.
-
- V. Koh, P. Chew, G. Triolo, K. S. Lim, and K. Barton, “Treatment Outcomes Using the PAUL Glaucoma Implant to Control Intraocular Pressure in Eyes With Refractory Glaucoma,” Ophthalmology Glaucoma 3, no. 5 (2020): 350–359, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogla.2020.05.001.
-
- M. Karapapak and A. Olgun, “One‐Year Outcomes of the PAUL Glaucoma Implant Compared With the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve for the Treatment of Silicone Oil Glaucoma,” Journal of Glaucoma 33, no. 5 (2024): 310–316, https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000002360.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
