XEN® Gel Stent: A Comprehensive Review on Its Use as a Treatment Option for Refractory Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antonio M Fea,1 Georges M Durr,2,3 Paola Marolo,1 Lorenza Malinverni,1 Mario A Economou,4 Ike Ahmed5 1Struttura Complessa Oculistica, Città Della Salute e Della Scienza di Torino, Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche - Università Degli Studi di Torino, Torino, Italy; 2Department of Ophthalmology, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada; 3Department of Ophthalmology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montréal (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada; 4Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; 5Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaCorrespondence: Antonio M Fea Email antoniomfea@gmail.comAbstract: The XEN Gel Microstent is a subconjunctival microinvasive glaucoma surgical device developed with the aim of improving the predictability and safety profile of bleb-forming glaucoma surgical procedures. The stent is a hydrophilic tube composed of a porcine gel cross-linked with glutaraldehyde with good stability and biocompatibility with minimal tissue reaction. This device has demonstrated promising outcomes with fewer risks compared to traditional surgeries. The aim of the review is to present early studies on different designs of the XEN Gel Stent, to summarize different surgical techniques of implantation and to analyze more comprehensively the results, complications and rates of needling of the commercially available device (Xen 45). The review will address separately special cases (PXG, UVG, ICE, congenital glaucoma) and describe small series and case reports.Keywords: XEN Gel Stent, glaucoma surgery, review, efficacy, safety, needling
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".