Capsule excision and Ologen™ implantation for revision after glaucoma drainage device surgery

  • André Rosentreter
  • Anne C. Mellein
  • Walter W. Konen
  • Thomas S. Dietlein
Glaucoma

Abstract

Background

There is little information available about surgical management after failed glaucoma drainage device (GDD) surgery. We present the outcome of capsule excision after failed GDD surgery compared to capsule excision with additional use of a biodegradable implant (Ologen™, version 2) as a placeholder.

Methods

In an observational comparative case series of 19 patients undergoing excision of the GDD capsule, ten prospectively observed consecutive patients were treated by excision of the capsule, topical mitomycin C application, and implantation of an 10 × 10 × 2 mm-sized Ologen™ implant (group A) while 9 retrospectively observed consecutive patients were treated by excision of the capsule and topical mitomycin C application alone (group B).

Results

Mean preoperative IOP was 29.4 mmHg for group A and 27.6 mmHg for group B, while mean postoperative IOP at the last follow-up (mean follow-up 11.2 (group A) and 8.6 (group B) months) was 17.3 mmHg for group A and 19.3 mmHg for group B (p > 0.05). Follow-up of the two groups demonstrated a significant difference in success rate (log-rank test, p = 0.04) in favor of group A. No further pressure-reducing surgery was necessary in any of the patients in group A, but it was needed in three of nine patients in group B.

Conclusions

Although our study has the limitations of small sample size and observational study design, it shows that further investigation is warranted into the potential of Ologen™ in revision surgery after GDD implantation.

Keywords

Glaucoma drainage device Biodegradable implant Ologen™ implant Capsule excision 

References

  1. 1.
    Beck AD, Freedman S, Kammer J, Jin J (2003) Aqueous shunt devices compared with trabeculectomy with Mitomycin-C for children in the first two years of life. Am J Ophthalmol 136:994–1000CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goulet RJ 3rd, Phan AD, Cantor LB, WuDunn D (2008) Efficacy of the Ahmed S2 Glaucoma valve compared with the Baerveldt 250 mm2 glaucoma implant. Ophthalmology 115:1141–1147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hong CH, Arosemena A, Zurakowski D, Ayyala RS (2005) Glaucoma drainage devices: a systematic literature review and current controversies. Surv Ophthalmol 50:48–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Syed HM, Law SK, Nam SH, Li G, Caprioli J, Coleman A (2004) Baerveldt-350 implant versus Ahmed valve for refractory glaucoma. A case-controlled comparison. J Glaucoma 13:38–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    WuDunn D, Phan AD, Cantor LB, Lind JT, Cortes A, Wu B (2006) Clinical experience with the Baerveldt 250 mm2 glaucoma implant. Ophthalmology 113:766–772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Molteno AC, Dempster AG, Carne A (1999) Molteno implants: the principles of bleb management. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 27:350–353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen PP, Palmberg PF (1997) Needling revision of glaucoma drainage device filtering blebs. Ophthalmology 104:1004–1010PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gracia Gracia-Miguel T, Gutierrez Diaz E, Montero Rodiguez M, Sarmiento Torres B (2002) Management of encapsulated blebs after glaucoma drainage device surgery. Arch Soc Esp Ophthalmol 77:429–433Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shah AA, WuDunn D, Cantor LB (2000) Shunt revision versus additional tube shunt implantation after failed tube shunt surgery in refractory glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 129:455–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen HS, Ritch R, Krupin T, Hsu WC (2006) Control of filtering bleb structure through tissue bioengineering: an animal model. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:5310–5314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hsu WC, Ritch R, Krupin T, Chen HS (2008) Tissue bioengineering for surgical bleb defects: an animal study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 246:709–717CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hsu WC, Spilker MH, Yannas IV, Rubin PA (2000) Inhibition of conjunctival scarring and contraction by a porous collagen-glycosaminoglycan implant. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:2404–2411PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stenzel KH, Miyata T, Rubin AL (1974) Collagen as a biomaterial. Annu Rev Biophys Bioeng 3:231–253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosentreter A, Dinslage S, Krieglstein GK, Dietlein TS (2010) Intra-individual comparison after combined phaco-trabecular aspiration in pairs of pseudoexfoliative eyes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 248:79–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Okuda T, Higashide T, Fukuhira Y, Sumi Y, Shimomura M, Sugiyama K (2009) A thin honeycomb-patterned film as an adhesion barrier in an animal model of glaucoma filtration surgery. J Glaucoma 18:220–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Takeuchi K, Nakazawa M, Yamazaki H, Miyagawa Y, Ito T, Ishikawa F, Metoki T (2009) Solid hyaluronic acid film and the prevention of postoperative fibrous scar formation in experimental animal eyes. Arch Ophthalmol 127:460–464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tsurumaru N, Arai M, Teruya K, Sueda J, Yamakawa R (2009) Seprafilm as a new antifibrotic agent following trabeculectomy in rabbit eyes. Jpn J Ophthalmol 53:164–170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aptel F, Dumas S, Denis P (2009) Ultrasound biomicroscopy and optical coherence tomography imaging of filtering blebs after deep sclerectomy with new collagen implant. Eur J Ophthalmol 19:223–230PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • André Rosentreter
    • 1
  • Anne C. Mellein
    • 1
  • Walter W. Konen
    • 1
  • Thomas S. Dietlein
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.University of DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations