PAUL ® glaucoma implant – efficacy and safety: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the PAUL ® Glaucoma Implant in reducing intraocular pressure and number of anti-glaucoma medication use in both adult and paediatric populations.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The databases PubMed, Ovid-Embase and Scopus were searched to include studies published between January 2017 and September 2025. Studies were stratified by age and risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and ROBUST-RCT for randomized trials. Primary outcomes were intraocular pressures and number of glaucoma medications at each follow-up visits. Random effects meta-analyses were performed. Secondary outcome was complications.

Results

Twenty-four studies (twenty adults, four paediatric) comprising 836 eyes were included in our review and meta-analysis. Both adult and paediatric patients showed significant IOP reduction post-surgery, with a mean difference of 17.48 mmHg (95% CI: 14.59, 20.37) and 20.31 mmHg (95% CI: 7.80, 32.82) at 1 week, respectively, and sustained reductions at 12 months. The reduction in glaucoma medications was 79.2% for adults and 71.4% for children at 12 months. Subgroup analyses demonstrated greater IOP reduction in studies conducted in the Middle East. The uses of Mitomycin C did not significantly affect outcomes.

Conclusion

The PAUL ® glaucoma implant showed significant and sustained IOP reductions with reduced need for glaucoma medications. The PAUL ® glaucoma implant is a promising surgical option for glaucoma management in both adults and children. Further long-term prospective comparative studies are needed to assess long-term efficacies and allow direct comparisons with other glaucoma drainage devices.

Article activity feed