Abstract
Purpose
To present and compare the long-term results of Dr. Tamcelik’s previously described technique of Tenon advancement and duplication with the conventional Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implantation technique in patients with refractory glaucoma.
Methods
This study was a multicenter, retrospective case series that included 303 eyes of 276 patients with refractory glaucoma who underwent glaucoma valve implantation surgery. The patients were divided into three groups according to the surgical technique applied and the outcomes compared. In group 1, 96 eyes of 86 patients underwent AGV implant surgery without patch graft; in group 2, 78 eyes of 72 patients underwent AGV implant surgery with donor scleral patch; in group 3, 129 eyes of 118 patients underwent Ahmed valve implant surgery with “combined short scleral tunnel with Tenon advancement and duplication technique”. The endpoint assessed was tube exposure through the conjunctiva.
Results
In group 1, conjunctival tube exposure was seen in 11 eyes (12.9 %) after a mean 9.2 ± 3.7 years of follow-up. In group 2, conjunctival tube exposure was seen in six eyes (2.2 %) after a mean 8.9 ± 3.3 years of follow-up. In group 3, there was no conjunctival exposure after a mean 7.8 ± 2.8 years of follow-up. The difference between the groups was statistically significant. (P = 0.0001, Chi-square test).
Conclusion
This novel surgical technique combining a short scleral tunnel with Tenon advancement and duplication was found to be effective and safe to prevent conjunctival tube exposure after AGV implantation surgery in patients with refractory glaucoma.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Syed HM, Law SK, Nam SH, Li G, Caprioli J, Coleman A. Baerveldt-350 implant versus Ahmed valve for refractory glaucoma: a case-controlled comparison. J Glaucoma. 2004;13:38–45.
Al-Mobarak F, Khan AO. Complications and 2-year valve survival following Ahmed valve implantation during the first 2 years of life. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93:795–8.
Gedde SJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, Budenz DL, Feuer WJ, Schiffman JC. Surgical complications in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study during the first year of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:23–31.
Sarkisian SR Jr. Tube shunt complications and their prevention. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20:126–30.
Freedman J. Scleral patch grafts with Molteno setons. Ophthalmic Surg. 1987;18:532–4.
Brandt JD. Patch grafts of dehydrated cadaveric dura mater for tube-shunt glaucoma surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:1436–9.
Smith MF, Doyle JW, Ticrney JW Jr. A comparison of glaucoma drainage implant tube coverage. J Glaucoma. 2002;11:143–7.
Kurnaz E, Kubaloğlu A, Aşık N, Özdemir B, Erol K, Özertürk Y. Lamellar donor cornea in Ahmed glaucoma valve surgery. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2009;39:103–10.
Tamcelik N, Sarici AM, Yetik H, Ozkok A, Ozkiris A. A novel surgical technique to prevent postoperative Ahmed valve tube exposure through conjunctiva: Tenon advancement and duplication. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2010;41:370–4.
Hijikata K, Masuda K. Visual prognosis in Behcet’s disease: effects of cyclophosphamide and colchicine. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 1978;22:506–19.
Tamcelik N, Ozkiris A, Sarici AM. Long-term results of combined viscotrabeculotomy-trabeculectomy in refractory developmental glaucoma. Eye (Lond). 2010;24:613–8.
Tamçelik N, Ozkiriş A. A comparison of viscogoniotomy with classical goniotomy in Turkish patients. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2004;48:404–7.
Aktas S, Cilsim S, Aktas H, Eltutar K. Comparison of clinical results between silicone and polypropylene Ahmed glaucoma valves in end-stage glaucoma. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2008;38:381–8.
Gutierrez-Diaz E, Montero-Rodriguez M, Mencia-Gutierrez E, Fernandez-Gonzalez MC, Perez-Blazquez E. Propionibacterium acnes endophthalmitis in Ahmed glaucoma valve. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2001;11:383–5.
del-Hierro-Zarzuelo A, Vico-Ruiz E, Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Castillo-Martin A, Garcia-Sanchez J. Late endophthalmitis following Ahmed valve (in Spanish). Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2005;80:659–61.
Melamed S, Fiore PM. Molteno implant surgery in refractory glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol. 1990;34:441–8.
Tanji TM, Lundy DC, Minckler DS, Heuer DK, Varma R. Fascia lata patch graft in glaucoma tube surgery. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:1309–12.
Raviv T, Greenfield DS, Liebmann JM, Sidoti PA, Ishikawa H, Ritch R. Pericardial patch grafts in glaucoma implant surgery. J Glaucoma. 1998;7:27–32.
Byun YS, Lee NY, Park CK. Risk factors of implant exposure outside the conjunctiva after Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2009;53:114–9.
Melamed S, Cahane M, Gutman I, Blumenthal M. Postoperative complications after Molteno implant surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 1991;111:319–22.
Mills RP, Reynolds A, Emond MJ, Barlow WE, Leen MM. Long-term survival of Molteno glaucoma drainage devices. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:299–305.
Morad Y, Donaldson CE, Kim YM, Abdolell M, Levin AV. The Ahmed drainage implant in the treatment of pediatric glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135:821–9.
Leuenberger E, Rivera J, Veloso M. Ahmed glaucoma valve tube erosion: a retrospective comparative review of autologous scleral patch versus donor scleral patch grafts. Asian J Ophthalmol. 2008;10:347–53.
Ozdamar A, Aras C, Ustundag C, Tamcelik N, Ozkan S. Scleral tunnel for the implantation of glaucoma Seton devices. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 2001;32:432–5.
Ollila M, Falck A, Airaksinen PJ. Placing the Molteno implant in a long scleral tunnel to prevent postoperative tube exposure. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005;83:302–5.
Lusky M, Weinreb RN. Preservation of scleral grafts to avoid HIV infection. J Glaucoma. 1992;1:221.
Centers for Disease Control. Creutzfeldt–Jacob disease associated with cadaveric dura mater grafts. MMWR. 1997;46:1066–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Tamcelik, N., Ozkok, A., Sarıcı, A.M. et al. Tenon advancement and duplication technique to prevent postoperative Ahmed valve tube exposure in patients with refractory glaucoma. Jpn J Ophthalmol 57, 359–364 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-013-0249-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-013-0249-5