Advertisement

The Ideal Glaucoma Drainage Device: Which One to Choose?

  • Purvi Bhagat
Chapter

Abstract

The number of available surgical options for managing glaucoma is on the rise. Innovations in technology not only offer greater hope to patients but also force the surgeons to make difficult therapeutic decisions. The surgeons must critically evaluate each individual case and treatment options to determine which surgical measure would finally be the most appropriate.

References

  1. 1.
    Singh P, Kuldeep K, Tyagi M, Sharma PD, Kumar Y. Glaucoma drainage devices. J Clin Ophthalmol Res. 2013;1:77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thieme H. Glaucoma drainage devices. Ophthalmologe. 2009;106(12):1135–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lim KS, Allan BDS, Lloyd AW, et al. Glaucoma drainage devices; past, present, and future. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82:1083–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caprioli J, Law SK, Giaconi JAA. Pearls of glaucoma management. Berlin: Springer; 2010. p. 296.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mills RP, Reynolds A, Emond MJ, et al. Long-term survival of Molteno glaucoma drainage devices. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hong CH, Arosemena A, Zurakowski D, Ayyala RS. Glaucoma drainage devices: a systematic literature review and current controversies. Surv Ophthalmol. 2005;50:48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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;99:1512–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lloyd MA, Baerveldt G, Fellenbaum PS, et al. Intermediate-term results of a randomized clinical trial of the 350 versus the 500 mm2 Baerveldt implant. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:1456–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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;106:2312–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rodgers CD, Meyer AM, Sherwood MB. Relationship between Glaucoma drainage device size and intraocular pressure control: does size matter? J Curr Glaucoma Pract. 2017;11(1):34.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ayyala RS, Zurakowski D, Monshizadeh R, Hong CH, Richards D, Layden WE, et al. Comparison of double-plate Molteno and Ahmed glaucoma valve in patients with advanced uncontrolled glaucoma. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 2002;33:94–101.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Molteno ACB. New implant for drainage in glaucoma: clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 1969;53:606–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    David R. Risks of Glaucoma drainage devices. 2014.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ayyala RS, Harman LE, Michelini-Norris B, et al. Comparison of different biomaterials for glaucoma drainage devices. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:233–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ayyala RS, Michelini-Norris B, Flores A, et al. Comparison of different biomaterials for glaucoma drainage devices: part 2. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:1081–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mackenzie PJ, Schertzer RM, Isbister CM. Comparison of silicone and polypropylene Ahmed glaucoma valves: two-year follow-up. Can J Ophthalmol. 2007;42:227–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brasil MVOM, Rockwood EJ, Smith S. Comparison of silicone and polypropylene Ahmed glaucoma valve implants. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ishida K, Netland PA, Costa VP, et al. Comparison of polypropylene and silicone Ahmed glaucoma valves. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:1320–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Syed HM, Law SK, Nam SH, et al. Baerveldt-350 implant versus Ahmed valve for refractory glaucoma: a case-controlled comparison. J Glaucoma. 2004;13:38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang JC, See JL, Chew PT. Experience with the use of Baerveldt and Ahmed glaucoma drainage implants in an Asian population. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:1383–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tsai JC, Johnson CC, Kammer JA, et al. The Ahmed shunt versus the Baerveldt shunt for refractory glaucoma II: longer-term outcomes from a single surgeon. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:913–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Christakis PG, Kalenak JW, Zurakowski D, Tsai JC, Kammer JA, Harasymowycz PJ, Ahmed II. The Ahmed Versus Baerveldt study: one-year treatment outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(11):2180–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boris D, Anjali SH. Advice on glaucoma drainage devices: glaucoma today. 2012:49–51.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Budenz DL, Barton K, Feuer WJ, Schiffman J, Costa VP, Godfrey DG, Buys YM, Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study Group. Treatment outcomes in the Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study after 1 year of follow-up. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(3):443–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ike A, Panos GC, James T. Study compares drainage devices: pros, cons provide insight into role of these implants in treatment of refractory glaucoma. 2012.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barton K, Heuer DK. Modern aqueous shunt implantation: future challenges. Prog Brain Res. 2008;173:263–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tarek S, Shibal B. Surgical management of glaucoma: evolving paradigms. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2011;59(Suppl 1):S123–30.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Theime H. Current status of epibulbar anti-glaucoma drainage devices in Glaucoma surgery. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2012;109(40):659–64.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fran Smith M. The cost factor: tubes vs trabs redux. Rev Ophthalmol. 2009.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ahmed IK, Christakis PG. Ahmed, Baerveldt or something else? Rev Ophthalmol. 2013.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kahook M, Shuman JS. Chandler and grant’s glaucoma. 5th ed. Thorofare, NJ: Slack Inc.; 2013. p. 582–3.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yvonne O. Glaucoma surgery series: tube shunts—a new drainage device for glaucoma. 2014.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    David R. Does it matter which glaucoma drainage device is implanted? 2014.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Aminlari AE, Scott IU, Aref AA. Glaucoma drainage implant surgery—an evidence-based update with relevance to Sub-Saharan Africa. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2013;20:126–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Richard Z, Angela G. An OD’s guide to Glaucoma surgery: some patients will opt for drainage implants or other procedures. How will they impact how optometrists monitor and treat? Rev Optom. 2015.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Catoira Boyle Y. Mini-shunts vs. traditional shunts in practice which to use: when and why. Ophthalmol Manag. 2012;16:60–4.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chen TC. Surgical techniques in ophthalmology series: glaucoma surgery. Elsevier Health Sciences. 2007:63.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mayer HR, Lin JL. New technologies for treating Glaucoma in patients undergoing cataract surgery. Eur Ophthal Rev. 2009;3(2):44–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Emerick GT. Highlights of the American glaucoma society. Glaucoma Today. 2013:55–6.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Angmo D, Temkar S, Saini M, Aggarwal R, Dada T. The Ex-PRESS Glaucoma drainage device: current perspective. DJO. 2014;24:151–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ichhpujani P, Moster MR. Novel glaucoma surgical devices, glaucoma–basic and clinical concepts. In: Shimon R, editor. 201:417–442. http://www.intechopen.com/books/glaucoma-basic-and-clinical-concepts/novel-glaucoma-surgical-devices.
  42. 42.
    Liu J-H, Lin H-Y, Tzeng S-H, Chao S-C. Comparison of trabeculectomy with Ex-PRESS shunt implantation in primary-open-angle-glaucoma patients: a retrospective study. Taiwan J Ophthalmol. 2015;5:120–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Purvi Bhagat
    • 1
  1. 1.M & J Western Regional Institute of OphthalmologyB. J. Medical College and Civil HospitalAhmedabadIndia

Personalised recommendations