Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in primary open-angle glaucoma and pseudoexfoliative glaucoma

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the clinical outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implantation in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and pseudoexfoliative glaucoma (PEXG).

Methods

The patients who underwent AGV implantation for POAG and PEXG between January 2015 and December 2021 in a single tertiary center eye clinic were reviewed retrospectively. Thirty-one eyes with the diagnosis of POAG constituted Group 1 and 40 eyes with the diagnosis of PEXG constituted Group 2. The primary outcome measures were intraocular pressure (IOP) changes after AGV implantation and surgical success at the last visit. We evaluated complete and qualified surgical success using the following three criteria: (1) IOP ≤ 21mmH g, (2) IOP ≤ 18 mmHg, and (3) IOP ≤ 15 mmHg, as well as the absence of any serious complications, such as light perception loss and phthisis bulbi, and additional de novo glaucoma surgery.

Results

The mean follow-up times were 25.2 (± 21.4) months and 27.6 (± 19.8) months for Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p > 0.05). In Groups 1 and 2, the mean preoperative IOPs were 31.9 ± 9.4 mmHg and 32.3 ± 8.4 mmHg, respectively, which significantly reduced to 14.5 ± 0.7 mmHg and 11.6 ± 0.6 mmHg, respectively at the last postoperative visit (p < 0.001 for both). The mean IOP value at the last visit was statistically significantly lower in Group 2 (p = 0.006). At the last visit, the number of eyes with qualified success according to criteria 1, 2, and 3 was 26 (83.9%), 25 (80.6%), and 18 (58.1%), respectively, in Group 1 and 39 (97.5%), 39 (97.5%), and 32 (80%), respectively, in Group 2. The comparison of the qualified success rates showed statistically significantly higher rates in Group 2 for criterion 2 (p = 0.038).

Conclusion

AGV implantation had high success rates in both POAG and PEXG, but at the final visit, lower IOP levels were reached in the latter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data used in this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. Ritch R, Schlötzer-Schrehardt U (2001) Exfoliation syndrome. Surv Ophthalmol 45(4):265–315

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Henry JC, Krupin T, Schmitt M et al (1987) Long-term follow-up of pseudoexfoliation and the development of elevated intraocular pressure. Ophthalmology [Internet] 94(5):545–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(87)33413-X

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Vesti E, Kivela T (2000) Exfoliation syndrome and exfoliation glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 19(3):345–368

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pose-Bazarra S, López-Valladares MJ, López-de-Ullibarri I et al (2021) Surgical and laser interventions for pseudoexfoliation glaucoma systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Eye [Internet] 35(6):1551–1561. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-021-01424-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Coleman AL (2012) Advances in glaucoma treatment and management: Surgery. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53(5):2491–2494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bar-David L, Blumenthal EZ (2018) Evolution of glaucoma surgery in the last 25 years. Rambam Maimonides Med J 9(3):e0024

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Broadway DC, Chang LP (2001) Trabeculectomy, risk factors for failure and the preoperative state of the conjunctiva. J Glaucoma 10(3):237–249

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ramulu PY, Corcoran KJ, Corcoran SL et al (2007) Utilization of various glaucoma surgeries and procedures in medicare beneficiaries from 1995 to 2004. Ophthalmology 114(12):2265–2271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ et al (2005) The tube versus trabeculectomy study: design and baseline characteristics of study patients. Am J Ophthalmol 140(2):275.e1-275.e14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gedde S, Anderson D, Budenz D et al (2012) The tube versus trabeculectomy study: interpretation of results and application to clinical practice. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 23(2):118–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kugu S, Erdogan G, Sevim MS et al (2015) Efficacy of long scleral tunnel technique in preventing ahmed glaucoma valve tube exposure through conjunctiva. Semin Ophthalmol 30(1):1–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tsai JC, Budenz DL (2017) Five-year pooled data analysis of the Ahmed Baerveldt comparison study and the Ahmed versus Baerveldt study. Am J Ophthalmol [Internet] 176:118–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2017.01.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Coleman AL et al (2004) Predictive factors for glaucomatous visual field progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Ophthalmology 111(9):1627–1635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gaasterland DE, Blackwell B, Ederer F et al (2004) The advanced glaucoma intervention study (AGIS): 13. Comparison of treatment outcomes within race—10-year results. Ophthalmology 111(4):651–664

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gaasterland DE, Ederer F, Beck A et al (2000) The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9394(00)00538-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Xie Z, Liu H, Du M et al (2019) Efficacy of ahmed glaucoma valve implantation on neovascular glaucoma. Int J Med Sci 16(10):1371–1376

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Ong SC, Aquino MC, Chew P et al (2020) Surgical outcomes of a second Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in Asian eyes with refractory glaucoma. J Ophthalmol 2020:8741301. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8741301

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Satana B, Yalvac IS, Sungur G et al (2015) Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation for uveitic glaucoma secondary to Behçet disease. J Glaucoma 24(8):607–612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bao N, Jiang ZX, Coh P et al (2018) Long-term outcomes of uveitic glaucoma treated with Ahmed valve implant in a series of Chinese patients. Int J Ophthalmol 11(4):629–634

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Pakravan M, Esfandiari H, Yazdani S et al (2019) Clinical outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in pediatric glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol 29(1):44–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kang YK, Shin JP, Kim DW (2022) Long-term surgical outcomes of Ahmed valve implantation in refractory glaucoma according to the type of glaucoma. BMC Ophthalmol [Internet] 22(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02493-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Choo JQH, Chen ZD, Koh V, Liang S, Aquino CM, Sng C et al (2018) Outcomes and complications of Ahmed tube implantation in Asian Eyes. J Glaucoma 27(8):733–738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ayyala RS, Zurakowski D, Smith JA et al (1998) A clinical study of the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in advanced glaucoma. Ophthalmology 105(10):1968–1976

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Elhefney E, Mokbel T, Abou Samra W et al (2018) Long-term results of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in Egyptian population. Int J Ophthalmol 11(3):416–421

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Sarkisian SR (2009) Tube shunt complications and their prevention. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 20(2):126–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Erçalık NY, İmamoğlu S (2018) Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in vitrectomized eyes. J Ophthalmol 2018:9572805. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9572805

  27. Mitchell P, Wang JJ, Smith W (1997) Association of pseudoexfoliation syndrome with increased vascular risk. Am J Ophthalmol [Internet] 124(5):685–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9394(14)70908-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Landers J, Martin K, Sarkies N et al (2012) A twenty-year follow-up study of trabeculectomy: risk factors and outcomes. Ophthalmology 119(4):694–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Li F, Tang G, Zhang H et al (2020) The effects of trabeculectomy on pseudoexfoliation glaucoma and primary open-angle glaucoma. J Ophthalmol 2020:1723691. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1723691

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Okeke CO, Miller-Ellis E, Rojas M (2017) Trabectome success factors. Medicine (Baltimore) [Internet] 96(24):7061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hengerer FH, Auffarth GU, Riffel C et al (2018) Prospective, non-randomized, 36-month study of second-generation trabecular micro-bypass stents with phacoemulsification in eyes with various types of glaucoma. Ophthalmol Ther [Internet] 7(2):405–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-018-0152-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Quigley HA (2019) 21st century glaucoma care. Eye [Internet] 33(2):254–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-018-0227-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Lichter PR et al (2009) Visual field progression in the collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study. The impact of treatment and other baseline factors. Ophthalmology [Internet]. 116(2):200-207.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.08.051

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Istanbul Haydarpasa Numune Training and Research Hospital, 34668, Uskudar, Istanbul, Turkey

    Yasemin Un & Serhat Imamoglu

Authors
  1. Yasemin Un
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Serhat Imamoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YU and SI were responsible for the study design, data acquisition, and analysis. YU wrote the manuscript. Both authors critically revised the manuscript and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yasemin Un.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Un, Y., Imamoglu, S. Clinical outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in primary open-angle glaucoma and pseudoexfoliative glaucoma. Int Ophthalmol 44, 25 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-024-02918-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-024-02918-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation