Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Glaucoma
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

References

  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 136:994–1000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 115:1141–1147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hong CH, Arosemena A, Zurakowski D, Ayyala RS (2005) Glaucoma drainage devices: a systematic literature review and current controversies. Surv Ophthalmol 50:48–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 13:38–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. WuDunn D, Phan AD, Cantor LB, Lind JT, Cortes A, Wu B (2006) Clinical experience with the Baerveldt 250 mm2 glaucoma implant. Ophthalmology 113:766–772

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Molteno AC, Dempster AG, Carne A (1999) Molteno implants: the principles of bleb management. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 27:350–353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen PP, Palmberg PF (1997) Needling revision of glaucoma drainage device filtering blebs. Ophthalmology 104:1004–1010

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 77:429–433

    Google Scholar 

  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 129:455–460

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 47:5310–5314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hsu WC, Ritch R, Krupin T, Chen HS (2008) Tissue bioengineering for surgical bleb defects: an animal study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 246:709–717

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 41:2404–2411

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stenzel KH, Miyata T, Rubin AL (1974) Collagen as a biomaterial. Annu Rev Biophys Bioeng 3:231–253

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 248:79–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 18:220–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 127:460–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 53:164–170

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 19:223–230

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, Joseph-Stelzmann-Str. 9, 50931, Cologne, Germany

    André Rosentreter, Anne C. Mellein, Walter W. Konen & Thomas S. Dietlein

  2. University of Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Thomas S. Dietlein

Authors
  1. André Rosentreter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne C. Mellein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Walter W. Konen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas S. Dietlein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to André Rosentreter.

Additional information

Competing interest for all authors

None to declare.

The authors have full control of all primary data and agree to allow Graefes Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology to review their data upon request.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rosentreter, A., Mellein, A.C., Konen, W.W. et al. Capsule excision and Ologen™ implantation for revision after glaucoma drainage device surgery. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 248, 1319–1324 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-010-1385-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-010-1385-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation