The Modified Schocket Procedure

  • Luis E. VazquezEmail author
  • Steven J. Gedde
Part of the Essentials in Ophthalmology book series (ESSENTIALS)


Glaucoma is not infrequently encountered after retinal detachment surgery. Surgical management of glaucoma in eyes with preexisting scleral buckles can be challenging. Trabeculectomy has a high failure rate because poor conjunctival health limits bleb survival, and glaucoma drainage devices have large-sized plates and their implantation is often difficult if a scleral buckle is present. The modification to the original Schocket procedure described by Sidoti and colleagues in which a silicone tube is inserted into the capsule of a preexisting scleral buckle is a good surgical option. This anterior chamber tube shunt to an encircling band (ACTSEB) is a safe and effective option to control intraocular pressure (IOP) in these cases. Reported success in lowering IOP ranges between 80 and 90 % in published retrospective case series. Reported complications include immediate postoperative hypotony, serous choroidal detachments, conjunctival wound leak, hyphema, and tube obstruction. The use of current glaucoma drainage devices in eyes with preexisting scleral buckles has also been described with comparable outcome and complication rates. The modified Schocket procedure is particularly useful when significant conjunctival and subconjunctival scarring is present in eyes with preexisting scleral buckles.


Schocket ACTSEB Retinal detachment Scleral buckle Conjunctival scarring Glaucoma drainage device Baerveldt Molteno 


Compliance with Ethical Requirements

Luis E. Vazquez and Steven J. Gedde declare that they have no conflict of interest. No human or animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.

Supplementary material

Video 12.1

Modified Schocket Procedure; Ahmad A. Aref, MD (MPG 75,510 kb)


  1. 1.
    Beasley H, Fraunfelder FT. Retinal detachments and topical ocular miotics. Ophthalmology. 1979;86(1):95–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker B, Podos SM. Krukenberg’s spindles and primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1966;76(5):635–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pape LG, Forbes M. Retinal detachment and miotic therapy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1978;85(4):558–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Podos SM, Becker B, Morton WR. High myopia and primary open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1966;62(6):1038–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scheie HG, Cameron JD. Pigment dispersion syndrome: a clinical study. Br J Ophthalmol. 1981;65(4):264–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barile GR, Chang S, Horowitz JD, Reppucci VS, Schiff WM, Wong DT. Neovascular complications associated with rubeosis iridis and peripheral retinal detachment after retinal detachment surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126(3):379–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Matsuo N, Takabatake M, Ueno H, Nakayama T, Matsuo T. Photoreceptor outer segments in the aqueous humor in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Am J Ophthalmol. 1986;101(6):673–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Meurs JC, Bolt BJ, Mertens DA, Peperkamp E, De Waard P. Rubeosis of the iris in proliferative vitreoretinopathy. Retina. 1996;16(4):292–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chang S. LXII Edward Jackson lecture: open angle glaucoma after vitrectomy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141(6):1033–43. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.02.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Govetto A, Dominguez R, Landaluce ML, Alves MT, Lorente R. Prevalence of open angle glaucoma in vitrectomized eyes: a cross-sectional study. Retina. 2014;34(8):1623–9. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koreen L, Yoshida N, Escariao P, Niziol LM, Koreen IV, Musch DC, Chang S. Incidence of, risk factors for, and combined mechanism of late-onset open-angle glaucoma after vitrectomy. Retina. 2012;32(1):160–7. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e318217fffb.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gedde SJ. Management of glaucoma after retinal detachment surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2002;13(2):103–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bloome MA. Transient angle-closure glaucoma in central retinal vein occlusion. Ann Ophthalmol. 1977;9(1):44–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grant WM. Shallowing of the anterior chamber following occlusion of the central retinal vein. Am J Ophthalmol. 1973;75(3):384–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hook SR, Holladay JT, Prager TC, Goosey JD. Transient myopia induced by sulfonamides. Am J Ophthalmol. 1986;101(4):495–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hwang JC, Khine KT, Lee JC, Boyer DS, Francis BA. Methyl-sulfonyl-methane (MSM)-induced acute angle closure. J Glaucoma. 2013. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000027.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liang JC, Huamonte FU. Reduction of immediate complications after panretinal photocoagulation. Retina. 1984;4(3):166–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McDonald PR, Delapaz Jr V, Sarin LK. Nonrhegmatogenous retinal separation with choroidal detachment (uveal effusion). Am J Ophthalmol. 1965;59:820–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mensher JH. Anterior chamber depth alteration after retinal photocoagulation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1977;95(1):113–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ryan SJ, Goldberg MF. Anterior segment ischemia following scleral buckling in sickle cell hemoglobinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1971;72(1):35–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, Budenz DL. Treatment outcomes in the tube versus trabeculectomy study after one year of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(1):9–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.07.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, Budenz DL, Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study Group. Three-year follow-up of the tube versus trabeculectomy study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148(5):670–84. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2009.06.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, Budenz DL, Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study Group. Treatment outcomes in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) study after five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(5):789–803. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.10.026. e782.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sidoti PA, Minckler DS, Baerveldt G, Lee PP, Heuer DK. Aqueous tube shunt to a preexisting episcleral encircling element in the treatment of complicated glaucomas. Ophthalmology. 1994;101(6):1036–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schocket SS, Lakhanpal V, Richards RD. Anterior chamber tube shunt to an encircling band in the treatment of neovascular glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1982;89(10):1188–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schocket SS, Nirankari VS, Lakhanpal V, Richards RD, Lerner BC. Anterior chamber tube shunt to an encircling band in the treatment of neovascular glaucoma and other refractory glaucomas. A long-term study. Ophthalmology. 1985;92(4):553–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee KS, Sung KR, Na JH, Lee Y, Lee JY, Kim JG, Yoon YH. Clinical results of modified anterior chamber tube shunt to an encircling band surgery for uncontrolled intraocular pressure. J Glaucoma. 2013;22(2):140–4. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e318225b428.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Omi CA, De Almeida GV, Cohen R, Mandia Jr C, Kwitko S. Modified Schocket implant for refractory glaucoma. Experience of 55 cases. Ophthalmology. 1991;98(2):211–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sherwood MB, Joseph NH, Hitchings RA. Surgery for refractory glaucoma. Results and complications with a modified Schocket technique. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105(4):562–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scott IU, Gedde SJ, Budenz DL, Greenfield DS, Flynn Jr HW, Feuer WJ, Mello Jr MO, Krishna R, Godfrey DG. Baerveldt drainage implants in eyes with a preexisting scleral buckle. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118(11):1509–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang L, Blachley TS, Weizer JS. Baerveldt 250 mm2 glaucoma drainage devices in eyes with preexisting scleral buckles. J Glaucoma. 2014. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000095.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smith MF, Sherwood MB, McGorray SP. Comparison of the double-plate Molteno drainage implant with the Schocket procedure. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110(9):1246–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bascom Palmer Eye InstituteUniversity of MiamiMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations