Advertisement

Clinical outcomes after Ex-PRESS glaucoma shunt versus non-penetrating deep sclerectomy: two-year follow-up

  • Beatriz Puerto
  • Cristina López-Caballero
  • Carmen Sánchez-Sánchez
  • Noelia Oblanca
  • Vanesa Blázquez
  • Inés Contreras
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the two-year outcomes of non-penetrating deep sclerectomy (NPDS) and Ex-PRESS glaucoma shunt.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of patients who had undergone NPDS or Ex-PRESS since 2012 was conducted. Patients were excluded if they had undergone eye surgery other than cataract extraction, were diagnosed with ocular pathology other than glaucoma or had less than two-year follow-up. Pre- and postoperative visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), number of hypotensive drugs and visual fields were recorded, as well as intra- and postoperative complications.

Results

Thirty-nine eyes were included in the NPDS and twenty-three eyes in the Ex-PRESS group. There were no differences in baseline IOP and hypotensive drugs, IOP reduction or postoperative IOP-lowering medications between groups. Two years after surgery, IOP decrease compared to baseline was 23.5% with NPDS and 24.8% with Ex-PRESS. Qualified success (a 20% IOP reduction, with IOP ≤ 18 mmHg with or without medication) rates were similar: 53.8 and 69.6% for NPDS and Ex-PRESS. Visual fields progressed in four eyes of the NPDS (10.2%) and in three eyes (8.7%) of the Ex-PRESS group. As regards complications, early hypotony was more frequent after NPDS (9 eyes, 23.1%) than Ex-PRESS (2 eyes, 8.7%), although the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

Both NPDS and Ex-PRESS produce an IOP-lowering effect of approximately 25%. Success rates are similar after both procedures, and both seem to lead to a stabilization of visual loss.

Keywords

Glaucoma surgery Non-penetrating deep sclerectomy Ex-PRESS glaucoma shunt Visual field progression 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Supplementary material

10792_2017_771_MOESM1_ESM.sav (69 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (SAV 69 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Eldaly MA, Bunce C, Elsheikha OZ, Wormald R (2014) Non-penetrating filtration surgery versus trabeculectomy for open-angle glaucoma. Cochrane Database Syst RevCD007059Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rulli E, Biagioli E, Riva I et al (2013) Efficacy and safety of trabeculectomy vs nonpenetrating surgical procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Ophthalmol 131:1573–1582CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beltran-Agullo L, Trope GE, Jin Y, Wagschal LD, Jinapriya D, Buys YM (2015) Comparison of visual recovery following ex-PRESS versus trabeculectomy: results of a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Glaucoma 24:181–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moisseiev E, Zunz E, Tzur R, Kurtz S, Shemesh G (2015) Standard trabeculectomy and Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma shunt: a comparative study and literature review. J Glaucoma 24:410–416CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shaarawy T, Goldberg I, Fechtner R (2015) EX-PRESS glaucoma filtration device: review of clinical experience and comparison with trabeculectomy. Surv Ophthalmol 60:327–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hodapp E, Parrish RK, Anderson DR (1993) Clinical decisions in glaucoma. Mosby, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Jong LA (2009) The Ex-PRESS glaucoma shunt versus trabeculectomy in open-angle glaucoma: a prospective randomized study. Adv Ther 26:336–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Jong LA, Lafuma A, Aguade AS, Berdeaux G (2011) Five-year extension of a clinical trial comparing the EX-PRESS glaucoma filtration device and trabeculectomy in primary open-angle glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol 5:527–533PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gonzalez-Rodriguez JM, Trope GE, Drori-Wagschal L, Jinapriya D, Buys YM (2016) Comparison of trabeculectomy versus Ex-PRESS: 3-year follow-up. Br J Ophthalmol 100:1269–1273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Good TJ, Kahook MY (2011) Assessment of bleb morphologic features and postoperative outcomes after Ex-PRESS drainage device implantation versus trabeculectomy. Am J Ophthalmol 151:507–513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maris PJ Jr, Ishida K, Netland PA (2007) Comparison of trabeculectomy with Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma device implanted under scleral flap. J Glaucoma 16:14–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mendoza-Mendieta ME, Lopez-Venegas AP, Valdes-Casas G (2016) Comparison between the EX-PRESS P-50 implant and trabeculectomy in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol 10:269–276CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seider MI, Rofagha S, Lin SC, Stamper RL (2012) Resident-performed Ex-PRESS shunt implantation versus trabeculectomy. J Glaucoma 21:469–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wagschal LD, Trope GE, Jinapriya D, Jin YP, Buys YM (2015) Prospective randomized study comparing Ex-PRESS to trabeculectomy: 1-year results. J Glaucoma 24:624–629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gutierrez-Ortiz C, Perez-Rico C, Moreno-Salgueiro A, Gonzalez-Mesa A (2015) Visante anterior segment optical coherence tomography analysis of morphologic changes in the anterior segment structures after deep sclerotomy versus phaco-deep sclerotomy with intraoperative mitomycin-c and no implant use. Semin Ophthalmol.  https://doi.org/10.3109/08820538.2015.1053621 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sponsel WE, Groth SL (2013) Mitomycin-augmented non-penetrating deep sclerectomy: preoperative gonioscopy and postoperative perimetric, tonometric and medication trends. Br J Ophthalmol 97:357–361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bonilla R, Loscos J, Valldeperas X, Parera MÀ, Sabala A (2012) Supraciliary hema implant in combined deep sclerectomy and phacoemulsification: one year results. Open Ophthalmol J 6:59–62CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bilgin G, Karakurt A, Saricaoglu MS (2014) Combined non-penetrating deep sclerectomy with phacoemulsification versus non-penetrating deep sclerectomy alone. Semin Ophthalmol 29:146–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dahan E, Carmichael TR (2005) Implantation of a miniature glaucoma device under a scleral flap. J Glaucoma 14:98–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clínica RementeríaMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations