Advertisement

Glaucoma Drainage Devices: Complications and Their Management

  • Bhumika Sharma
  • Monica Gandhi
  • Suneeta Dubey
  • Usha Yadava
Chapter

Abstract

The management of glaucoma has undergone a paradigm shift. Glaucoma drainage devices (GDD) have become the mainstay of treatment for the management of refractory and complicated glaucomas. The GDDs are associated with a special group of complications. This could partially be attributable to the complex nature of the cases selected. It can also be dependent on the design and material inadequacies inherent in the contemporary GDDs. The role in the management of glaucoma is based on the patient and disease profile; however, before deciding the surgery, one must know the associated complications and the management of the same to make it more safe, reproducible and dependable to prevent rather than add to the burden of the disease progression.

References

  1. 1.
    Schwartz KS, Lee RK, Geddee SJ. Glaucoma Drainage implants: a critical comparison of types. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008;17:181–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ayyala RS, Zurakowski D, Monshizadeh R, et al. Comparison of double-plate Molteno and Ahmed glaucoma valve in patients with advanced uncontrolled glaucoma. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 2002;33:94–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mills RP, Reynolds A, Emond MJ, et al. Long-term survival of Molteno glaucoma drainage devices. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Perkins TW, Cardakli UF, Eisele JR, et al. Adjunctive mitomycin C in Molteno implant surgery. Ophthalmology. 1995;102:91–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Perkins TW, Gangnon R, Ladd W, et al. Molteno implant with mitomycin C: intermediate-term results. J Glaucoma. 1998;7:86–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levinson JD, Giangiacomo AL, Beck AD, Pruett PB, Superak HM, Lynn MJ, Costarides AP. Glaucoma drainage devices: risk of exposure and infection. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;160(3):516–521.e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Byun YS, Lee NY, Park CK. Risk factors of implant exposure outside the conjunctiva after Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2009;53:114–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huddleston SM, Feldman RM, Budenz DL, et al. Aqueous shunt exposure: a retrospective review of repair outcome. J Glaucoma. 2011;22:433–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ball SF, Ellis GS, Herrington RG, Liang K. Brown’s superior oblique tendon syndrome after Baerveldt glaucoma implant. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110:1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilson-Holt N, Franks W, Nourredin B, Hitchings R. Hypertropia following insertion of inferiorly sited double-plate Molteno tubes. Eye. 1992;6:515–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith SL, Starita RJ, Fellman RL, Lynn JR. Early clinical experience with the Baerveldt 350-mm2 glaucoma implant and associated extraocular muscle imbalance. Ophthalmology. 1993;100:914–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cantor L, Burgoyne J, Sanders S, et al. The effect of mitomycin C on Molteno implant surgery: a 1-year randomized, masked, prospective study. J Glaucoma. 1998;7:240–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Costa VP, Azuara-Blance A, Netland PA, et al. Efficacy and safety of adjunctive mitomycin C during Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:1071–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bhumika Sharma
    • 1
  • Monica Gandhi
    • 2
  • Suneeta Dubey
    • 3
  • Usha Yadava
    • 1
  1. 1.Guru Nanak Eye CenterMaulana Azad Medical CollegeNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Anterior Segment and Glaucoma Services, Department of OphthalmologyDr. Shroff’s Charity Eye HospitalNew DelhiIndia
  3. 3.Glaucoma Services, Department of OphthalmologyDr. Shroff’s Charity Eye HospitalNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations