Complications After CyPass® Micro-Stent Explantation: a Case Series

Overview

Journal Int Ophthalmol

Specialty Ophthalmology

Date 2024 Feb 9

PMID 38336985

Authors

Kirsten J Habbe

Markus Kohlhaas

Sofia Fili

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To describe the in toto explantation of the CyPass® Micro-Stent and its conceivable complications.

Methods: This is a case series of eighteen eyes from fourteen patients who underwent CyPass® Micro-Stent implantation due to mild to moderate glaucoma and who subsequently suffered from loss of endothelial cell density. Consequently, the CyPass® Micro-Stent was in toto explanted. The surgical procedure and its complications are described and compared with trimming of the CyPass® Micro-Stent.

Results: A postoperative hyphema was developed in 8 of the 18 eyes. In four of them the hyphema was self-limiting, while in two patients an anterior chamber irrigation was necessary. One patient suffered from a severe intracameral bleeding and iridodialysis during explantation, so that the base of the iris had to be scleral fixated. The remaining explantations were without complications.

Conclusion: Dealing with implanted CyPass® Micro-Stents poses a challenge for ophthalmic surgeons. An in toto removal can be traumatic, since the CyPass stent often is fibrotic encapsulated and fused with the surrounding tissue. Alternatively, trimming of the CyPass is also a viable option to avoid further endothelial damage. Reported complications of CyPass trimming are consistent with those that can occur after explantation. Further data on the development of the endothelial cells after trimming or explantation are not yet available. Therefore, it remains open whether trimming of the CyPass, in contrast to complete removal, carries the risk of further endothelial cell loss.

References

Ansari E . An Update on Implants for Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS). Ophthalmol Ther. 2017; 6(2):233-241. PMC: 5693836. DOI: 10.1007/s40123-017-0098-2. View

Weinreb R, Aung T, Medeiros F . The pathophysiology and treatment of glaucoma: a review. JAMA. 2014; 311(18):1901-11. PMC: 4523637. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.3192. View

Schoelles K, Anton A, Auw-Haedrich C . Chronic Granulomatous Inflammation after CyPass® Implantation. Ocul Oncol Pathol. 2020; 6(4):259-264. PMC: 7506250. DOI: 10.1159/000505491. View

Reiss G, Clifford B, Vold S, He J, Hamilton C, Dickerson J . Safety and Effectiveness of CyPass Supraciliary Micro-Stent in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: 5-Year Results from the COMPASS XT Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019; 208:219-225. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2019.07.015. View

Hoh H, Grisanti S, Rau M, Ianchulev S . Two-year clinical experience with the CyPass micro-stent: safety and surgical outcomes of a novel supraciliary micro-stent. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2014; 231(4):377-81. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1368214. View

Fili S, Seddig S, Vastardis I, Perdikakis G, Wolfelschneider P, Kohlhaas M . [Explantation of the CyPass implant in a case series of patients with corneal decompensation]. Ophthalmologe. 2020; 118(1):42-49. DOI: 10.1007/s00347-020-01106-5. View

Margolina E, Hoeh H, Rau M, Erb C, Kersten-Gomez I, Dick H . [Supraciliary microstent for open-angle glaucoma: clinical results of a prospective multicenter study]. Ophthalmologe. 2013; 111(6):548-52. DOI: 10.1007/s00347-013-2927-6. View

Vold S, Ahmed I, Craven E, Mattox C, Stamper R, Packer M . Two-Year COMPASS Trial Results: Supraciliary Microstenting with Phacoemulsification in Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma and Cataracts. Ophthalmology. 2016; 123(10):2103-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.06.032. View

Fili S, Seddig S, Papadopoulou E, Kohlhaas M . [One-year results after Cypass implantation]. Ophthalmologe. 2018; 116(5):447-455. DOI: 10.1007/s00347-018-0745-6. View

10.

Rose C, Schargus M . [CyPass microstent trimming with special cutting forceps : Video article]. Ophthalmologe. 2022; 119(4):421-424. DOI: 10.1007/s00347-022-01596-5. View

11.

Habbe K, Kohlhaas M, Langwieder C, Fili S . Foreign body reaction after CyPass® Micro-Stent implantation: a case series. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022; 261(2):513-520. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-022-05767-7. View

12.

Grewal A, Singh M, Yadav D, Kaur M, Singh J, Sharma M . Long-term ophthalmic anatomical and functional outcomes after surgical removal of intraorbital foreign bodies. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2019; 31(1):263-270. DOI: 10.1177/1120672119885587. View

13.

Huang Y, Yan H, Cai J, Li H . Removal of intraocular foreign body in anterior chamber angle with prism contact lens and 23-gauge foreign body forceps. Int J Ophthalmol. 2017; 10(5):749-753. PMC: 5437463. DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2017.05.15. View

14.

Hubner L, Schlotzer-Schrehardt U, Weller J, Hohberger B, Mardin C, Lammer R . Ultrastructural analysis of explanted CyPass microstents and correlation with clinical findings. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022; 260(8):2663-2673. PMC: 9325823. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-022-05620-x. View

15.

Lass J, Benetz B, He J, Hamilton C, Von Tress M, Dickerson J . Corneal Endothelial Cell Loss and Morphometric Changes 5 Years after Phacoemulsification with or without CyPass Micro-Stent. Am J Ophthalmol. 2019; 208:211-218. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2019.07.016. View