» Articles » PMID: 34792556

Evaluation of the Ultrastructural and In Vitro Flow Properties of the PRESERFLO MicroShunt

Overview
Date 2021 Nov 18
PMID 34792556
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To measure the in vitro flow properties of the PRESERFLO implant for comparison with the theoretical resistance to flow.

Methods: The PRESERFLO was designed to control the flow of aqueous humor according to the Hagen-Poiseuille (HP) equation. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed to analyze the ultrastructure, and flow measurements were carried out using a gravity-flow setup.

Results: SEM images of the PRESERFLO showed luminal diameters of 67.73 × 65.95 µm and 63.66 × 70.54 µm. The total diameter was 337.2 µm, and the wall was 154 µm wide. The theoretical calculation of the resistance to flow (R) for an aqueous humor (AH) viscosity of 0.7185 centipoises (cP) was 1.3 mm Hg/(µL/min). Hence, assuming a constant AH flow of 2 µL/min, the pressure differential across the device (ΔP) was estimated to be 2.6 mm Hg. The gravity-flow experiment allowed us to measure the experimental resistance to flow, which was RE = 1.301 mm Hg/(µL/min), in agreement with the theoretical resistance to flow R given by the HP equation.

Conclusions: The experimental and theoretical flow testing showed that the pressure drop across this device would not be large enough to avoid hypotony unless the resistance to outflow of the sub-Tenon space was sufficient to control the intraocular pressure in the early postoperative period.

Translational Relevance: The fluid properties of glaucoma subconjunctival drainage devices determine their specific bleb-forming capacity and ability to avoid hypotony and therefore their safety and efficacy profile.

Citing Articles

Risk factors and protective strategies for hypotony following preserflo microshunt implantation.

Mieno H, Mori K, Yoshii K, Okada Y, Ikeda Y, Ueno M Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):8344.

PMID: 40069337 PMC: 11897240. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-92879-9.


Update on Surgical Techniques Best Practices to Optimize Outcomes Following Gel Stent Implantation.

Vera V, Sheybani A, Panarelli J, Grover D, Lee J, Craven E Clin Ophthalmol. 2025; 19:325-347.

PMID: 39911142 PMC: 11794994. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S487718.


Intraluminal Insertion of 9-0 Nylon for Postoperative Choroidal Detachment After Preserflo MicroShunt Implantation: A Case Report.

Kitamura Y, Ikema S, Tatsumi T, Baba T Cureus. 2024; 16(11):e74560.

PMID: 39735092 PMC: 11676401. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.74560.


Flow characterization and structural alterations in Ahmed glaucoma FP7 tubes after in-vitro aging in silicone oil.

Taha A, Clarke M, Wabl C, Han Y, Brodie F PLoS One. 2024; 19(11):e0310564.

PMID: 39499689 PMC: 11537406. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310564.


The use of intraluminal PRESERFLO stenting in avoiding early postoperative hypotony.

Verma-Fuehring R, Dakroub M, Bamousa A, Kann G, Hillenkamp J, Kampik D Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2024; 262(12):3925-3932.

PMID: 38969777 PMC: 11608340. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-024-06567-x.


References
1.
Lim K . Control and optimisation of fluid flow in glaucoma drainage device surgery. Eye (Lond). 2018; 32(2):230-234. PMC: 5811747. DOI: 10.1038/eye.2017.316. View

2.
El-Maghraby A, Helal M, Amayem A . The use of releasable sutures in Molteno glaucoma implant procedures to reduce postoperative hypotony. Ophthalmic Surg. 1991; 22(2):82-4. View

3.
Pinchuk L, Riss I, Batlle J, Kato Y, Martin J, Arrieta E . The development of a micro-shunt made from poly(styrene-block-isobutylene-block-styrene) to treat glaucoma. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2015; 105(1):211-221. PMC: 5215625. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.33525. View

4.
Sheybani A, Reitsamer H, Ahmed I . Fluid Dynamics of a Novel Micro-Fistula Implant for the Surgical Treatment of Glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015; 56(8):4789-95. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.15-16625. View

5.
Christakis P, Kalenak J, Zurakowski D, Tsai J, Kammer J, Harasymowycz P . The Ahmed Versus Baerveldt study: one-year treatment outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2011; 118(11):2180-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.05.004. View