Advertisement

Glaucoma Drainage Devices

  • James D. Brandt
  • Naama Hammel
  • Cecilia Fenerty
  • Tanya Karaconji
Chapter

Abstract

Glaucoma drainage devices (GDDs) are useful in the management of complex childhood glaucoma. They can be used as a primary procedure in certain circumstances or as a second procedure where more conventional surgery (e.g., angle surgery) has been performed and failed. GDDs can broadly be categorized by whether they are valved or non-valved designs and then further categorized by plate surface area. Non-valved implants must be temporarily occluded to prevent early hypotony until sufficient fibrosis has developed around the plate to prevent hypotony; valved devices allow flow immediately after surgical implantation.

This chapter reviews the current status of GDDs in the management of childhood glaucoma including the general principles of these devices, recommended surgical techniques, and a review of the current pediatric GDD literature. We provide what we hope will be useful guidance to surgeons confronting this clinical challenge, emphasizing the why, when, and how of GDDs in the treatment of childhood glaucoma. Low-cost GDDs are now available for use in resource-constrained settings, and we encourage those caring for children with glaucoma to add the use of GDDs to their surgical portfolio – successful cases make all the hard work of managing these children among the most rewarding long-term aspect of childhood glaucoma care.

Keywords

Glaucoma drainage device Tube shunts Ahmed Baerveldt Molteno AADI, Complications, Outcomes, Surgical techniques, Indications 

Supplementary material

Video 7.1

Blunt dissection of the correct sub-Tenon’s plane may be started with scissors and completed with two squint hooks inserted back-to-back in this pocket and pulled gently apart. (Courtesy of Cecilia Fenerty, MD, FRCOphth and Tanya Karaconji, MD, FRANZCO) (MP4 210510 kb)

Video 7.2

Method of inserting a tube into the anterior chamber using a blunt-tipped cannula. The tip of the cannula is firmly engaged onto the cut bevel of the tube and gently inserted through the scleral tunnel taking the tube with it. (Courtesy of Cecilia Fenerty, MD, FRCOphth and Tanya Karaconji, MD, FRANZCO) (MP4 42304 kb)

Video 7.3

A long tunnel in the patient’s native sclera created using a small mini-crescent blade (1.25 mm in width) that can be used to tunnel in the sclera up to about 2 mm posterior to the limbus, then completing the entry into the eye with a 25-gauge needle. (Courtesy of James D. Brandt, MD) (MOV 3040454 kb)

Video 7.4

Insertion of the tube of a Baerveldt glaucoma drainage device in an eye with aniridia . The lens is slightly displaced to the nasal side, and insertion of the tube at a tangent avoids contact with the lens. The anterior chamber infusion maintains the anterior chamber and constant intraocular pressure throughout the procedure. (Courtesy of Cecilia Fenerty, MD, FRCOphth and Tanya Karaconji, MD, FRANZCO) (MP4 193935 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Barkan O. Operation for congenital glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1942;25(5):552–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen L, Burian HM. Trabeculotomy ab externo. A new glaucoma operation: technique and results of experimental surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 1962;53:19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harms H, Dannheim R. Trabeculotomy 'ab externo'. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K. 1970;89:589–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Minckler DS, Francis BA, Hodapp EA, Jampel HD, Lin SC, Samples JR, et al. Aqueous shunts in glaucoma: a report by the American Academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(6):1089–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Britt MT, LaBree LD, Lloyd MA, Minckler DS, Heuer DK, Baerveldt G, et al. Randomized clinical trial of the 350-mm2 versus the 500-mm2 Baerveldt implant: longer term results: is bigger better? Ophthalmology. 1999;106(12):2312–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gardiner BS, Smith DW, Coote M, Crowston JG. Computational Modeling of Fluid Flow and Intra-Ocular Pressure following Glaucoma Surgery PLoS ONE. 2010;5. (10) https://doi.org/:10.1371/journal.pone.0013178.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Molteno AC. New implant for drainage in glaucoma. Clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 1969;53(9):606–15.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Molteno AC, Polkinghorne PJ, Bowbyes JA. The vicryl tie technique for inserting a draining implant in the treatment of secondary glaucoma. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1986;14(4):343–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vinod K, Panarelli JF, Gentile RC, Sidoti PA. Long-term outcomes and complications of pars Plana Baerveldt implantation in children. J Glaucoma. 2017;26(3):266–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heuer DK, Lloyd MA, Abrams DA, Baerveldt G, Minckler DS, Lee MB, et al. Which is better? One or two? A randomized clinical trial of single-plate versus double-plate Molteno implantation for glaucomas in aphakia and pseudophakia. Ophthalmology. 1992;99(10):1512–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coleman AL, Hill R, Wilson MR, Choplin N, Kotas-Neumann R, Tam M, et al. Initial clinical experience with the Ahmed Glaucoma valve implant. Am J Ophthalmol. 1995;120(1):23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coleman AL, Smyth RJ, Wilson MR, Tam M. Initial clinical experience with the Ahmed Glaucoma valve implant in pediatric patients. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115(2):186–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaushik S, Kataria P, Raj S, Pandav SS, Ram J. Safety and efficacy of a low-cost glaucoma drainage device for refractory childhood glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(12):1623–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gedde SJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, Budenz DL, Feuer WJ, Schiffman JC, et al. Postoperative complications in the tube versus trabeculectomy (TVT) study during five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(5):804–14.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, Budenz DL, et al. Treatment outcomes in the tube versus trabeculectomy (TVT) study after five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(5):789–803.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Swamynathan K, Capistrano AP, Cantor LB, WuDunn D. Effect of temporal corneal phacoemulsification on intraocular pressure in eyes with prior trabeculectomy with an antimetabolite. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(4):674–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Budenz DL, Barton K, Gedde SJ, Feuer WJ, Schiffman J, Costa VP, et al. Five-year treatment outcomes in the Ahmed Baerveldt comparison study. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(2):308–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Margeta MA, Kuo AN, Proia AD, Freedman SF. Staying away from the optic nerve: a formula for modifying glaucoma drainage device surgery in pediatric and other small eyes. J AAPOS. 2017;21(1):39–43.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Suhr AW, Lim MC, Brandt JD, Izquierdo JC, Willits N. Outcomes of fornix-based versus limbus-based conjunctival incisions for glaucoma drainage device implant. J Glaucoma. 2012;21(8):523–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cheng J, Abolhasani M, Beltran-Agullo L, Moss EB, Buys YM, Trope GE. Priming the Ahmed glaucoma valve: pressure required and effect of overpriming. J Glaucoma. 2015;24(4):e34–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thakur S, Ichhpujani P, Kumar S. Grafts in glaucoma surgery: a review of the literature. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2017;6:469–76.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    O'Malley Schotthoefer E, Yanovitch TL, Freedman SF. Aqueous drainage device surgery in refractory pediatric glaucomas: I. Long-term outcomes. J AAPOS. 2008;12(1):33–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vinod K, Panarelli JF, Gentile RC, Sidoti PA. Vitreous occlusion of a Glaucoma drainage implant-surgical management. J Glaucoma. 2017;26(7):669–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tarantola RM, Agarwal A, Lu P, Joos KM. Long-term results of combined endoscope-assisted pars plana vitrectomy and glaucoma tube shunt surgery. Retina. 2011;31(2):275–83.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Costa VP, Azuara-Blanco A, Netland PA, Lesk MR, Arcieri ES. Efficacy and safety of adjunctive mitomycin C during Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(6):1071–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cui QN, Hsia YC, Lin SC, Stamper RL, Rose-Nussbaumer J, Mehta N, et al. Effect of mitomycin c and 5-flurouracil adjuvant therapy on the outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;45(2):128–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kirwan C, O'Keefe M, Lanigan B, Mahmood U. Ahmed valve drainage implant surgery in the management of paediatric aphakic glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:855–8.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Al-Mobarak F, Khan AO. Two-year survival of Ahmed valve implantation in the first 2 years of life with and without intraoperative mitomycin-C. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(10):1862–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mahdy RA. Adjunctive use of bevacizumab versus mitomycin C with Ahmed valve implantation in treatment of pediatric glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2011;20(7):458–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nouri-Mahdavi K, Caprioli J. Evaluation of the hypertensive phase after insertion of the Ahmed Glaucoma valve. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136(6):1001–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Won HJ, Sung KR. Hypertensive phase following silicone plate Ahmed Glaucoma valve implantation. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(4):e313–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Law SK, Kornmann HL, Giaconi JA, Kwong A, Tran E, Caprioli J. Early aqueous suppressant therapy on hypertensive phase following Glaucoma drainage device procedure: a randomized prospective trial. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(3):248–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pakravan M, Rad SS, Yazdani S, Ghahari E, Yaseri M. Effect of early treatment with aqueous suppressants on Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(9):1693–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hill R, Ohanesian R, Voskanyan L, Malayan A. The Armenian eye care project: surgical outcomes of complicated paediatric glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87(6):673–6.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hill RA, Heuer DK, Baerveldt G, Minckler DS, Martone JF. Molteno implantation for glaucoma in young patients. Ophthalmology. 1991;98(7):1042–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lloyd MA, Sedlak T, Heuer DK, Minckler DS, Baerveldt G, Lee MB, et al. Clinical experience with the single-plate Molteno implant in complicated glaucomas. Update of a pilot study. Ophthalmology. 1992;99(5):679–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fellenbaum PS, Sidoti PA, Heuer DK, Minckler DS, Baerveldt G, Lee PP. Experience with the baerveldt implant in young patients with complicated glaucomas. J Glaucoma. 1995;4(2):91–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Eid TE, Katz LJ, Spaeth GL, Augsburger JJ. Long-term effects of tube-shunt procedures on management of refractory childhood glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1997;104(6):1011–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Englert JA, Freedman SF, Cox TA. The Ahmed valve in refractory pediatric glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;127(1):34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Morad Y, Donaldson CE, Kim YM, Abdolell M, Levin AV. The Ahmed drainage implant in the treatment of pediatric glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135(6):821–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nesher R, Sherwood MB, Kass MA, Hines JL, Kolker AE. Molteno implants in children. J Glaucoma. 1992;1(4):228–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Donahue SP, Keech RV, Munden P, Scott WE. Baerveldt implant surgery in the treatment of advanced childhood glaucoma. J AAPOS. 1997;1(1):41–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Djodeyre MR, Peralta Calvo J, Abelairas GJ. Clinical evaluation and risk factors of time to failure of Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in pediatric patients. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(3):614–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pereira ML, Araujo SV, Wilson RP, Azuara-Blanco A, Moster MR, Schmidt CM. Aqueous shunts for intractable glaucoma in infants. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 2002;33(1):19–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Joos KM, Lavina AM, Tawansy KA, Agarwal A. Posterior repositioning of glaucoma implants for anterior segment complications. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(2):279–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Papadopoulos M, Edmunds B, Chiang M, Mandal A, Grajewski AL, Khaw PT. Glaucoma surgery in children. In: Weinreb RN, Grajewski A, Papadopoulos M, Grigg J, Freedman S, editors. Childhood glaucoma. WGA consensus series 9. Amsterdam: Kugler Publications; 2013. p. 95–134.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Molteno AC, Ancker E, Van Biljon G. Surgical technique for advanced juvenile glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;102(1):51–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Minckler DS, Heuer DK, Hasty B, Baerveldt G, Cutting RC, Barlow WE. Clinical experience with the single-plate Molteno implant in complicated glaucomas. Ophthalmology. 1988;95(9):1181–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Billson F, Thomas R, Aylward W. The use of two-stage Molteno implants in developmental glaucoma. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1989;26(1):3–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Munoz M, Tomey KF, Traverso C, Day SH, Senft SH. Clinical experience with the Molteno implant in advanced infantile glaucoma. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1991;28(2):68–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Netland PA, Walton DS. Glaucoma drainage implants in pediatric patients. Ophthalmic Surg. 1993;24(11):723–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Siegner SW, Netland PA, Urban RC Jr, Williams AS, Richards DW, Latina MA, et al. Clinical experience with the Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant. Ophthalmology. 1995;102(9):1298–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Cunliffe IA, Molteno AC. Long-term follow-up of Molteno drains used in the treatment of glaucoma presenting in childhood. Eye (Lond). 1998;12(Pt 3a):379–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hamush NG, Coleman AL, Wilson MR. Ahmed glaucoma valve implant for management of glaucoma in Sturge-weber syndrome. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128(6):758–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Huang MC, Netland PA, Coleman AL, Siegner SW, Moster MR, Hill RA. Intermediate-term clinical experience with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;127(1):27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Budenz DL, Gedde SJ, Brandt JD, Kira D, Feuer W, Larson E. Baerveldt glaucoma implant in the management of refractory childhood glaucomas. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(12):2204–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rodrigues AM, Corpa MV, Mello PA, de Moura CR. Results of the Susanna implant in patients with refractory primary congenital glaucoma. J AAPOS. 2004;8(6):576–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Chen TC, Bhatia LS, Walton DS. Ahmed valve surgery for refractory pediatric glaucoma: a report of 52 eyes. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2005;42(5):274–83. quiz 304-5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rolim de Moura C, Fraser-Bell S, Stout A, Labree L, Nilfors M, Varma R. Experience with the baerveldt glaucoma implant in the management of pediatric glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;139(5):847–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kafkala C, Hynes A, Choi J, Topalkara A, Foster CS. Ahmed valve implantation for uncontrolled pediatric uveitic glaucoma. J AAPOS. 2005;9(4):336–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    van Overdam KA, de Faber JT, Lemij HG, de Waard PW. Baerveldt glaucoma implant in paediatric patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(3):328–32.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Autrata R, Helmanova I, Oslejskova H, Vondracek P, Rehurek J. Glaucoma drainage implants in the treatment of refractory glaucoma in pediatric patients. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2007;17(6):928–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Souza C, Tran DH, Loman J, Law SK, Coleman AL, Caprioli J. Long-term outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in refractory glaucomas. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144(6):893–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sood S, Beck AD. Cyclophotocoagulation versus sequential tube shunt as a secondary intervention following primary tube shunt failure in pediatric glaucoma. J AAPOS. 2009;13(4):379–83.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    El Gendy NM, Song JC. Long term comparison between single stage Baerveldt and Ahmed glaucoma implants in pediatric glaucoma. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2012;26(3):323–6.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Balekudaru S, Vadalkar J, George R, Vijaya L. The use of Ahmed glaucoma valve in the management of pediatric glaucoma. J AAPOS. 2014;18(4):351–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Razeghinejad MR, Kaffashan S, Nowroozzadeh MH. Results of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in primary congenital glaucoma. J AAPOS. 2014;18(6):590–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Tai AX, Song JC. Surgical outcomes of Baerveldt implants in pediatric glaucoma patients. J AAPOS. 2014;18(6):550–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Chen A, Yu F, Law SK, Giaconi JA, Coleman AL, Caprioli J. Valved glaucoma drainage devices in pediatric glaucoma: retrospective long-term outcomes. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(9):1030–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Dave P, Senthil S, Choudhari N, Sekhar GC. Outcomes of Ahmed valve implant following a failed initial trabeculotomy and trabeculectomy in refractory primary congenital glaucoma. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2015;22(1):64–8.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mandalos A, Tailor R, Parmar T, Sung V. The long-term outcomes of glaucoma drainage device in pediatric glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(3):e189–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Eksioglu U, Yakin M, Sungur G, Satana B, Demirok G, Balta O, et al. Short- to long-term results of Ahmed glaucoma valve in the management of elevated intraocular pressure in patients with pediatric uveitis. Can J Ophthalmol. 2017;52(3):295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Beck AD, Freedman S, Kammer J, Jin J. Aqueous shunt devices compared with trabeculectomy with mitomycin-C for children in the first two years of life. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136(6):994–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Ishida K, Mandal AK, Netland PA. Glaucoma drainage implants in pediatric patients. Ophthalmol Clin N Am. 2005;18(3):431–42. viiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Tanimoto SA, Brandt JD. Options in pediatric glaucoma after angle surgery has failed. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006;17(2):132–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Arroyave CP, Scott IU, Gedde SJ, Parrish RK, Feuer W. Use of glaucoma drainge devices in the managemnet of glaucoma associated with aniridia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135(2):155–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Budenz DL, Sakamoto D, Eliezer R, Varma R, Heuer DK. Two-staged Baerveldt glaucoma implant for childhood glaucoma associated with Sturge-weber syndrome. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(11):2105–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Bohnsack BL, Freedman SF. Surgical outcomes in childhood uveitic glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;155(1):134–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Valimaki J, Airaksinen PJ, Tuulonen A. Molteno implantation for secondary glaucoma in juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115(10):1253–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Al-Torbak AA. Outcome of combined Ahmed glaucoma valve implant and penetrating keratoplasty in refractory congenital glaucoma with corneal opacity. Cornea. 2004;23(6):554–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Nassiri N, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Coleman AL. Ahmed glaucoma valve in children: a review. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2011;25(4):317–27.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Al-Torbak AA, Al-Shahwan S, Al-Jadaan I, Al-Hommadi A, Edward DP. Endophthalmitis associated with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(4):454–8.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Mandalos A, Sung V. Glaucoma drainage device surgery in children and adults: a comparative study of outcomes and complications. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;255(5):1003–11.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bansal A, Fenerty CH. Extension of retracted glaucoma drainage tube using a 22-gauge intravenous catheter in complex pediatric glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2010;19(4):248–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Smith MF, Doyle JW. Results of another modality for extending glaucoma drainage tubes. J Glaucoma. 1999;8(5):310–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Gedde SJ, Scott IU, Tabandeh H, Luu KK, Budenz DL, Greenfield D, et al. Late endophthalmitis associated with glaucoma drainage implants. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(7):1323–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Christmann LM, Wilson ME. Motility disturbances after Molteno implants. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1992;29(1):44–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Shah AA, WuDunn D, Cantor L. Shunt revision versus additional tube shunt implantation after failed tube shunt surgery in refractory glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129(4):455–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Burgoyne JK, WuDunn D, Lakhani V, Cantor L. Outcomes of sequential tube shunts in complicated glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(2):309–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • James D. Brandt
    • 1
  • Naama Hammel
    • 1
  • Cecilia Fenerty
    • 2
  • Tanya Karaconji
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmology and Vision ScienceUniversity of California, DavisSacramentoUSA
  2. 2.Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations