Safety and Efficacy of Second Ahmed Valve Implant in Refractory Glaucoma.
Ahmed Glaucoma Valve implantation
intraocular pressure
refractory glaucoma
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Jun 2020
29 Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
09
06
2020
revised:
25
06
2020
accepted:
28
06
2020
entrez:
3
7
2020
pubmed:
3
7
2020
medline:
3
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Refractory glaucoma still represents a challenge for ophthalmologists to manage intraocular pressure. The present study aimed to evaluate long term efficacy and safety of a second Ahmed valve implantation after the failure of a first implant in patients with refractory glaucoma and elevated intraocular pressure (IOP). Retrospective, multicenter non-comparative case series. Twenty-eight patients were retrospectively recruited between January 2011 and December 2017. Demographic data, glaucoma type, visual acuity, intraocular pressure, medical therapy, and complications were registered. Three criteria of success were established: Type 1 surgical success: IOP ≤ 15 mmHg and a reduction of IOP ≥ 40% from baseline; Type 2 surgical success: IOP ≤ 18 mmHg and a reduction of IOP ≥ 30% from baseline; and Type 3 surgical success: IOP ≤ 21 mmHg and a reduction of IOP ≥ 20% from baseline. Surgical failure has been established as IOP less than 5 mmHg or over 21 mmHg and less than a 20% reduction of IOP from baseline despite medications in two consecutive visits, light perception loss referable to glaucoma, and the necessity for further glaucoma surgery. Failure was observed in six (21%) patients. (3) Results: Mean IOP and mean glaucoma medication number significantly reduced from baseline after the second implantation, and the surgical success rate at 72 months ranged from 10% to 78% based on the different criteria of success. Failure was observed in six (21%) patients. This study confirmed the safety and efficacy of a second Ahmed valve implantation in patients with refractory glaucoma and elevated IOP at baseline.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Refractory glaucoma still represents a challenge for ophthalmologists to manage intraocular pressure. The present study aimed to evaluate long term efficacy and safety of a second Ahmed valve implantation after the failure of a first implant in patients with refractory glaucoma and elevated intraocular pressure (IOP).
METHODS
METHODS
Retrospective, multicenter non-comparative case series. Twenty-eight patients were retrospectively recruited between January 2011 and December 2017. Demographic data, glaucoma type, visual acuity, intraocular pressure, medical therapy, and complications were registered. Three criteria of success were established: Type 1 surgical success: IOP ≤ 15 mmHg and a reduction of IOP ≥ 40% from baseline; Type 2 surgical success: IOP ≤ 18 mmHg and a reduction of IOP ≥ 30% from baseline; and Type 3 surgical success: IOP ≤ 21 mmHg and a reduction of IOP ≥ 20% from baseline. Surgical failure has been established as IOP less than 5 mmHg or over 21 mmHg and less than a 20% reduction of IOP from baseline despite medications in two consecutive visits, light perception loss referable to glaucoma, and the necessity for further glaucoma surgery. Failure was observed in six (21%) patients. (3) Results: Mean IOP and mean glaucoma medication number significantly reduced from baseline after the second implantation, and the surgical success rate at 72 months ranged from 10% to 78% based on the different criteria of success. Failure was observed in six (21%) patients.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study confirmed the safety and efficacy of a second Ahmed valve implantation in patients with refractory glaucoma and elevated IOP at baseline.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32610602
pii: jcm9072039
doi: 10.3390/jcm9072039
pmc: PMC7408983
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Am J Ophthalmol. 1999 Apr;127(4):467-9
pubmed: 10218707
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2016 Mar;64(3):206-10
pubmed: 27146930
Semin Ophthalmol. 2015;30(5-6):345-51
pubmed: 24646312
Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2015 Apr-Jun;29(2):103-8
pubmed: 27616909
Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2008 Jan-Feb;39(1):22-9
pubmed: 18254347
Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 Dec;144(6):893-900
pubmed: 17916318
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2013 Mar;24(2):102-10
pubmed: 23313903
Arch Ophthalmol. 1994 Jan;112(1):80-4
pubmed: 8285899
Am J Ophthalmol. 2018 Feb;186:96-103
pubmed: 29199011
J Glaucoma. 2004 Feb;13(1):38-45
pubmed: 14704542
Ophthalmology. 2000 Feb;107(2):309-14
pubmed: 10690831
J Glaucoma. 2017 Apr;26(4):311-314
pubmed: 26859357
Am J Ophthalmol. 2010 Jan;149(1):95-101
pubmed: 19837382
J Glaucoma. 2017 Nov;26(11):1010-1018
pubmed: 28858156
Arch Ophthalmol. 2001 Mar;119(3):345-50
pubmed: 11231767
Am J Ophthalmol. 2000 Apr;129(4):455-60
pubmed: 10764852
Br J Ophthalmol. 2015 Dec;99(12):1718-24
pubmed: 26024673
J Glaucoma. 2009 Apr-May;18(4):336-40
pubmed: 19365202
J AAPOS. 2009 Aug;13(4):379-83
pubmed: 19683190
Br J Ophthalmol. 2006 Mar;90(3):262-7
pubmed: 16488940
Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 2002 Jan-Feb;33(1):37-43
pubmed: 11820661
J Glaucoma. 2016 Apr;25(4):e340-5
pubmed: 26709499
Ophthalmology. 1998 Oct;105(10):1968-76
pubmed: 9787371
Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2004 May-Jun;35(3):251-3
pubmed: 15185796
J Ophthalmol. 2020 Mar 23;2020:8741301
pubmed: 32280538
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 2;12(11):e0187533
pubmed: 29095931
J Glaucoma. 2020 Mar;29(3):184-190
pubmed: 31876869
Eye (Lond). 2007 Jul;21(7):936-40
pubmed: 16628239
Am J Ophthalmol. 1995 Jul;120(1):23-31
pubmed: 7611326
Ophthalmology. 1999 Nov;106(11):2168-72
pubmed: 10571354
Int Ophthalmol. 2016 Jun;36(3):347-53
pubmed: 26334729
Eye (Lond). 2004 Apr;18(4):352-6
pubmed: 15069428
Eye (Lond). 2005 Feb;19(2):183-90
pubmed: 15258600