25 April 2026
: Case report
[In Press] Panophthalmitis With Orbital Cellulitis Following Glaucoma Drainage Implant Surgery in an Adult Patient
Management of emergency care
Sami Alshahwan1ABCDEFG, Arwa Aljohany1ABCDEFG, Abdullah Alkandari2ABCDEFG, Mohammed Alsaedi34ABCDEFGDOI: 10.12659/AJCR.951844
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.951844
Available online: 2026-04-25, In Press, Corrected Proof
Publication in the "In-Press" formula aims at speeding up the public availability of the pending manuscript while waiting for the final publication. The assigned DOI number is active and citable. The availability of the article in the Medline, PubMed and PMC databases as well as Web of Science will be obtained after the final publication according to the journal schedule
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Glaucoma drainage implants, including the Paul glaucoma implant, are widely used in the management of refractory glaucoma when medical therapy and conventional filtering surgery prove insufficient. Although associated with favorable outcomes, rare but serious postoperative complications such as endophthalmitis and panophthalmitis can occur, resulting in significant visual morbidity.
CASE REPORT
We describe the case of a 77-year-old man with chronic angle-closure glaucoma who developed acute panophthalmitis with orbital cellulitis 12 days following uneventful Paul glaucoma implant surgery. He presented with severe ocular pain, eyelid swelling, restricted ocular motility, and marked reduction in visual acuity to light perception. Clinical examination revealed pronounced anterior and posterior segment inflammation. B-scan ultrasonography showed dense vitreous opacities, shallow choroidal detachment, and ocular wall thickening. Computed tomography of the orbit confirmed associated orbital cellulitis with proptosis and extraocular muscle swelling. The patient underwent vitreous tap with intravitreal vancomycin, ceftazidime, and dexamethasone, along with intensive topical and systemic antimicrobial therapy. Despite an initial partial response, progressive inflammation required pars plana vitrectomy. Removal of the glaucoma drainage implant was not possible intraoperatively due to severe inflammation. Microbiological cultures remained negative throughout. With coordinated multidisciplinary management involving glaucoma, retina, and oculoplastic services, orbital inflammation gradually resolved, and visual acuity improved from light perception to 20/250 at final follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
This case highlights the importance of close postoperative monitoring to ensure correct diagnosis and aggressive management of infections, preservation of globe integrity, and optimization of visual outcomes following glaucoma drainage device surgery.
Keywords: Ophthalmology; Glaucoma; Glaucoma Drainage Implants; Endophthalmitis; Orbital Cellulitis; Case Reports; Panophthalmitis
In Press
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.949976
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.950290
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.950607
Case report
Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.950985
Most Viewed Current Articles
07 Dec 2021 : Case report
17,691,734
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.934347
Am J Case Rep 2021; 22:e934347
06 Dec 2021 : Case report
164,491
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.934406
Am J Case Rep 2021; 22:e934406
21 Jun 2024 : Case report
113,090
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.944371
Am J Case Rep 2024; 25:e944371
07 Mar 2024 : Case report
59,175
DOI :10.12659/AJCR.943133
Am J Case Rep 2024; 25:e943133






