Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Nov 3.
doi: 10.1111/ceo.70019. Online ahead of print.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of the PAUL Glaucoma Implant: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Affiliations

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of the PAUL Glaucoma Implant: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Kai En Chan et al. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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