[Microsurgical trimming of the CyPass stent : Surgical procedure of the Neubrandenburg Eye Clinic. Video article]

Complications after CyPass® Micro-Stent explantation: a case series

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.

Corneal Endothelial Cell Loss in Patients After Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery: Current Perspectives

Minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) is a rapidly expanding category of surgical glaucoma treatment options that offer a superior safety profile compared with traditional approaches for reducing intraocular pressure. However, MIGS may cause corneal endothelial cell loss; therefore, it has been receiving increasing attention. This systematic review aimed to evaluate and compare the rate and degree of corneal endothelial loss after MIGS. First, this paper presents an overview of the theoretical effectiveness of MIGS, the fundamental aspects regarding the roles of endothelial cells, and the effect of cataract surgery on the quality and count of endothelial cells. Further, we detail the various surgical techniques involved in MIGS, the development of these techniques over the time, and clinical aspects to consider with respect to the endothelial cell count. We discuss in detail the COMPASS-XT study, which was based on data collected over 5 years, reported that withdrawal of the CyPass Micro-Stent (Alcon Laboratories) yielded increased corneal endothelial cell loss. Generally, MIGS procedures are considered safe, with the incidence of complications ranging from 1% to 20% depending on the surgery type; however, there is still need for studies with longer follow-up. Thus, an adequate count of endothelial cells in the central cornea portion is recommended as necessary for candidate patients for MIGS.

[CyPass microstent trimming with special cutting forceps : Video article]

OBJECTIVE OF SURGERY

A CyPass®-microstent (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA) extending too far into the anterior chamber should be trimmed as close as possible to the scleral spur to avoid progression of endothelial cell reduction.

INDICATIONS

After CyPass implantation, if there is a significant loss of corneal endothelial cells due to the Cypass microstent extending too far into the anterior chamber, trimming or removal of the CyPass stent is necessary.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

There are no contraindications.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

As shown in our video, which is available online, a special cutter (19 Gauge Ahmed Micro Stent Cutter, MicroSurgical Technology Inc, Redmond, WA, USA) is inserted into the anterior chamber via a 1.5-mm wide corneal paracentesis made directly opposite to the CyPass stent. It is then possible to trim the anterior part of the stent. The severed fragment is removed using the head of the forceps. Finally, the previously inserted viscoelastic agent can be aspirated and the paracentesis can be hydrated.

POSTOPERATIVE TREATMENT

After the surgery vision testing as well as control of intraocular pressure and location of the stent are carried out. Antibiotic eye drops and ointment are postoperatively applied.

EVIDENCE

There is still no standardized protocol for the procedure to trim the CyPass stent. Performing the trimming in our clinic using the procedure described here has so far not led to any complications. Long-term data about the development of the endothelial cell measurement after CyPass trimming are not yet available.

Endothelial cell loss associated with minimally invasive glaucoma surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) represents a safer, albeit moderately effective surgical option for intraocular pressure control. However, the CyPass Micro-Stent (Alcon Laboratories) was withdrawn from the market in 2018 as the COMPASS-XT study demonstrated greater cornea endothelial cell (CEC) loss in patients who received the CyPass Micro-Stent with phacoemulsification compared with phacoemulsification alone. This led to the increased attention on MIGS-associated CEC loss and thus, this review will summarise the recent, available evidence on MIGS-associated CEC loss.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prospective clinical trials and retrospective observational studies published between 2011 and 2021 reported a wide range of 12 month CEC loss from 'insignificant', and up to 14.6%, for phacoemulsification combined with various MIGS procedures. Recent clinical trials over the same time period reported CEC loss of 12.8-15.2% associated with phacoemulsification alone.

SUMMARY

Apart from the CyPass Micro-Stent clinical trial, no other studies on combined phacoemulsification with MIGS that is 'phaco-plus' procedures have reported a higher short-term CEC loss compared with phacoemulsification alone. However, studies that specifically examine postprocedural CEC loss following phacoemulsification compared to 'phaco-plus' procedures over a longer follow-up period are required.