Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Baerveldt surgery outcomes: anterior chamber insertion versus vitreous cavity insertion

  • Glaucoma
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We compared the outcomes of Baerveldt glaucoma implant (BGI) surgery between vitreous cavity and anterior chamber insertion.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed a total of 105 consecutive eyes that underwent BGI surgery and were followed up for ≥ 12 months. BGI surgery was performed via the anterior chamber (AC group 48 eyes) or the pars plana into the vitreous cavity (VC group 57 eyes). Patients’ data were examined at 3, 6, and 12 months, and then every 6 months after surgery. We compared the groups’ intraocular pressure (IOP), success ratio, visual acuity, number of glaucoma medications, central corneal endothelial cell density (CCECD), reduction ratio of CCECD, and postoperative complications.

Results

The mean preoperative and postoperative IOP values were not significantly different between the two groups. In the Kaplan-Meier survival plots, there was no significant between-group difference in the success rate (p = 0.333). The postoperative mean CCECD decreased significantly faster in the AC group than the VC group at all time points. The cases of postoperative corneal edema were 12.5% in AC group and 1.8% in VC group. The risk of postoperative corneal edema was significantly higher in the AC group (p = 0.0136). Risk factors for the rapid reduction of CCECD were “history of trabeculectomy” (p = 0.00283), “insertion into the anterior chamber” (p = 0.001), and “shorter distance between the tube and corneal endothelium” (p = 0.0137).

Conclusion

There was no significant between-group difference in postoperative IOP, medications, or success rate. Considering the reduction of corneal endothelial cells, insertion into the vitreous cavity seems safer than insertion into the anterior chamber.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mosaed S (2011) Update on aqueous shunts in glaucoma. Int Ophthalmol Clin 51:155–164. https://doi.org/10.1097/IIO.0b013e31821e5a79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tan AN, Webers CA, Berendschot TT et al (2017) Corneal endothelial cell loss after Baerveldt glaucoma drainage device implantation in the anterior chamber. Acta Ophthalmol 95:91–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.13161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Campagnoli TR, Kim SS, Smiddy WE et al (2015) Combined pars plana vitrectomy and Baerveldt glaucoma implant placement for refractory glaucoma. Int J Ophthalmol 8:916–921. https://doi.org/10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Hamanaka T, Otora K, Ono K, Ishida N (2014) Long-term results of non-valved glaucoma drainage implant surgery and glaucoma drainage implant combined with trabeculectomy. Indian J Ophthalmol 62:911–916. https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.143926

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Suarez-Fernandez MJ, Gutierrez-Diaz E, Julve San Martin A, Fernandez-Reyes MF, Mencia-Gutierrez E (2010) Simultaneous pars plana vitrectomy and glaucoma drainage device implant. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 85:97–102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Siegner SW, Netland PA, Urban RC et al (1995) Clinical experience with the Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant. Ophthalmology 102:1298–1307

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gedde SJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD et al (2012) Postoperative complications in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) study during five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol 153:804–814.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2011.10.024

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Mencucci R, Ponchietti C, Virgili G, Giansanti F, Menchini U (2006) Corneal endothelial damage after cataract surgery: microincision versus standard technique. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:1351–1354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chihara E, Umemoto M, Tanito M (2012) Preservation of corneal endothelium after pars plana tube insertion of the Ahmed glaucoma valve. Jpn J Ophthalmol 56:119–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-011-0108-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tojo N, Ueda-Consolvo T, Yanagisawa S, Hayashi A (2017) Baerveldt® glaucoma implant surgery with the double scleral flap technique to prevent Hoffman elbow exposure. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol (10):2001–2008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-017-3726-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. The Fluorouracil Filtering Surgery Study Group (1996) Five-year follow-up of the fluorouracil filtering surgery study. Am J Ophthalmol 121:349–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Panarelli JF, Banitt MR, Gedde SJ, Shi W, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ (2016) A retrospective comparison of primary Baerveldt implantation versus trabeculectomy with mitomycin C. Ophthalmology 123:789–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.11.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hu WD, Moster MR, Zheng CX et al (2016) Outcomes of sequential glaucoma drainage implants in refractory glaucoma. J Glaucoma 25:e340–e345. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sidoti PA, Mosny AY, Ritterband DC et al (2001) Pars plana tube insertion of glaucoma drainage implants and penetrating keratoplasty in patients with coexisting glaucoma and corneal disease. Ophthalmology 108:1050–1105

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim CS, Yim JH, Lee EK, Lee NH (2008) Changes in corneal endothelial cell density and morphology after Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation during the first year of follow up. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 36:142–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2008.01683.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee EK, Yun YJ, Lee JE, Yim JH, Kim CS (2009) Changes in corneal endothelial cells after Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation: 2-year follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol 148:361–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2009.04.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bourne WM, Nelson LR, Hodge DO (1997) Central corneal endothelial cell changes over a ten-year period. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 38:779–782

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kirkness CM, Ling Y. Rice NS. (1988) The use of silicone drainage tubing to control post-keratoplasty glaucoma. Eye 2: 583–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sherwood MB, Smith MF, Driebe WT Jr, Stern GA, Beneke JA, Zam ZS (1993) Drainage tube implants in the treatment of glaucoma following penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmic Surg 24:185–189

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kwon YH, Taylor JM, Hong S et al (2001) Long-term results of eyes with penetrating keratoplasty and glaucoma drainage tube implant. Ophthalmology 108:272–278

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rapuano CJ, Schmidt CM, Cohen EJ et al (1995) Results of alloplastic tube shunt procedures before, during, or after penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea 14:26–32

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Law SK, Coleman AL, Caprioli J (2009) Dynamic tube movement of Ahmed glaucoma valve. J Glaucoma 18:628–631. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181996f33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Casini G, Loiudice P, Pellegrini M (2015) Trabeculectomy versus EX-PRESS shunt versus Ahmed valve implant: short-term effects on corneal endothelial cells. Am J Ophthalmol 160:1185–1190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Freedman J, Iserovich P (2013) Pro-inflammatory cytokines in glaucomatous aqueous and encysted Molteno implant blebs and their relationship to pressure. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:4851–4855

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. McDermott ML, Swendris RP, Shin DH, Juzych MS, Cowden JW (1993) Corneal endothelial cell counts after Molteno implantation. Am J Ophthalmol 115:93–96

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Koo EB, Hou J, Han Y, Keenan JD, Stamper RL, Jeng BH (2015) Effect of glaucoma tube shunt parameters on cornea endothelial cells in patients with Ahmed valve implants. Cornea 34:37–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000000301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Doors M, Berendschot TT, Webers CA, Nuijts RM (2010) Model to predict endothelial cell loss after iris-fixated phakic intraocular lens implantation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51:811–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Vinod K, Panarelli JF, Gentile RC, Sidoti PA (2017) Vitreous occlusion of a glaucoma drainage implant-surgical management. J Glaucoma 26:669–672. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hau S, Scott A, Bunce C, Barton K (2011) Corneal endothelial morphology in eyes implanted with anterior chamber aqueous shunts. Cornea 30:50–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181e16d7d

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schlötzer-Schrehardt UM, Dörfler S, Naumann GO (1993) Corneal endothelial involvement in pseudoexfoliation syndrome. Arch Ophthalmol 111:666–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Naumann GO, Schlötzer-Schrehardt U (2000) Keratopathy in pseudoexfoliation syndrome as a cause of corneal endothelial decompensation: a clinicopathologic study. Ophthalmology 107:1111–1124

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Naumann GO, Schlötzer-Schrehardt U, Küchle M (1998) (1998) Pseudoexfoliation syndrome for the comprehensive ophthalmologist. Intraocular and systemic manifestations. Ophthalmology 105:951–968

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Storr-Paulsen A, Norregaard JC, Ahmed S, Storr-Paulsen T, Pedersen TH (2008) Endothelial cell damage after cataract surgery: divide-and-conquer versus phaco-chop technique. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:996–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.02.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama, 2630 Sugitani, Toyama, 930-0194, Japan

    Naoki Tojo, Atsushi Hayashi, Tomoko Consolvo-Ueda & Shuichiro Yanagisawa

Authors
  1. Naoki Tojo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Atsushi Hayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tomoko Consolvo-Ueda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shuichiro Yanagisawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naoki Tojo.

Ethics declarations

Meeting presentation

None.

The conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tojo, N., Hayashi, A., Consolvo-Ueda, T. et al. Baerveldt surgery outcomes: anterior chamber insertion versus vitreous cavity insertion. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 256, 2191–2200 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-4116-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-4116-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation