Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Ideal Glaucoma Drainage Device: Which One to Choose?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Glaucoma Drainage Devices

  • 526 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Singh P, Kuldeep K, Tyagi M, Sharma PD, Kumar Y. Glaucoma drainage devices. J Clin Ophthalmol Res. 2013;1:77–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Thieme H. Glaucoma drainage devices. Ophthalmologe. 2009;106(12):1135–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lim KS, Allan BDS, Lloyd AW, et al. Glaucoma drainage devices; past, present, and future. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82:1083–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Caprioli J, Law SK, Giaconi JAA. Pearls of glaucoma management. Berlin: Springer; 2010. p. 296.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Mills RP, Reynolds A, Emond MJ, et al. Long-term survival of Molteno glaucoma drainage devices. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:299–305.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Molteno ACB. New implant for drainage in glaucoma: clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 1969;53:606–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. David R. Risks of Glaucoma drainage devices. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ayyala RS, Harman LE, Michelini-Norris B, et al. Comparison of different biomaterials for glaucoma drainage devices. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:233–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Brasil MVOM, Rockwood EJ, Smith S. Comparison of silicone and polypropylene Ahmed glaucoma valve implants. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:36–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ishida K, Netland PA, Costa VP, et al. Comparison of polypropylene and silicone Ahmed glaucoma valves. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:1320–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Boris D, Anjali SH. Advice on glaucoma drainage devices: glaucoma today. 2012:49–51.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Barton K, Heuer DK. Modern aqueous shunt implantation: future challenges. Prog Brain Res. 2008;173:263–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tarek S, Shibal B. Surgical management of glaucoma: evolving paradigms. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2011;59(Suppl 1):S123–30.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Fran Smith M. The cost factor: tubes vs trabs redux. Rev Ophthalmol. 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ahmed IK, Christakis PG. Ahmed, Baerveldt or something else? Rev Ophthalmol. 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kahook M, Shuman JS. Chandler and grant’s glaucoma. 5th ed. Thorofare, NJ: Slack Inc.; 2013. p. 582–3.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Yvonne O. Glaucoma surgery series: tube shunts—a new drainage device for glaucoma. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  33. David R. Does it matter which glaucoma drainage device is implanted? 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Chen TC. Surgical techniques in ophthalmology series: glaucoma surgery. Elsevier Health Sciences. 2007:63.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mayer HR, Lin JL. New technologies for treating Glaucoma in patients undergoing cataract surgery. Eur Ophthal Rev. 2009;3(2):44–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Emerick GT. Highlights of the American glaucoma society. Glaucoma Today. 2013:55–6.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Angmo D, Temkar S, Saini M, Aggarwal R, Dada T. The Ex-PRESS Glaucoma drainage device: current perspective. DJO. 2014;24:151–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. M & J Western Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, B. J. Medical College and Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, India

    Purvi Bhagat

Authors
  1. Purvi Bhagat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dr. Shroff’s Charity Eye Hospital, New Delhi, India

    Monica Gandhi

  2. Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurgaon, India

    Shibal Bhartiya

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bhagat, P. (2019). The Ideal Glaucoma Drainage Device: Which One to Choose?. In: Gandhi, M., Bhartiya, S. (eds) Glaucoma Drainage Devices. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5773-2_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5773-2_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-5772-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-5773-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation