Risk factors for exposure of Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implants: a case-control study.
Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant
Glaucoma drainage device exposure
Implant model
Risk factor
Journal
BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Sep 2020
10 Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
08
07
2020
accepted:
01
09
2020
entrez:
11
9
2020
pubmed:
12
9
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Glaucoma drainage implant exposure is one of the serious complications after glaucoma drainage implant surgery. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the risk factors for exposure of the device after implantation of a Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant. This is a retrospective review of the medical records of all patients who underwent Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant surgery at the Hiroshima University Hospital between April 1, 2012 and October 31, 2016, and who were followed for at least 6 months after surgery. We examined the risk factors for implant exposure based on data obtained from the medical records, with a particular focus on the differences in implant models. A total of 80 eyes from 80 patients were identified; all patients were Japanese. In this study, the rate of Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant exposure was 15.0% (12 of 80 eyes). The exposure rate for the BG 102-350 tended to be higher than that for the BG 101-350 and BG 103-250 (p = 0.092; adjusted odds ratio = 3.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-13.58). In the patients who had diabetic mellitus, the BG 102-350 showed a significant risk of implant exposure (p = 0.038; adjusted odds ratio = 15.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-202.59). In Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant surgery in patients with diabetes, using the BG 102-350 was associated with greater risk of implant exposure compared with using the BG 101-350 or BG 103-250.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Glaucoma drainage implant exposure is one of the serious complications after glaucoma drainage implant surgery. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the risk factors for exposure of the device after implantation of a Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant.
METHODS
METHODS
This is a retrospective review of the medical records of all patients who underwent Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant surgery at the Hiroshima University Hospital between April 1, 2012 and October 31, 2016, and who were followed for at least 6 months after surgery. We examined the risk factors for implant exposure based on data obtained from the medical records, with a particular focus on the differences in implant models.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 80 eyes from 80 patients were identified; all patients were Japanese. In this study, the rate of Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant exposure was 15.0% (12 of 80 eyes). The exposure rate for the BG 102-350 tended to be higher than that for the BG 101-350 and BG 103-250 (p = 0.092; adjusted odds ratio = 3.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-13.58). In the patients who had diabetic mellitus, the BG 102-350 showed a significant risk of implant exposure (p = 0.038; adjusted odds ratio = 15.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-202.59).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant surgery in patients with diabetes, using the BG 102-350 was associated with greater risk of implant exposure compared with using the BG 101-350 or BG 103-250.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32912194
doi: 10.1186/s12886-020-01632-5
pii: 10.1186/s12886-020-01632-5
pmc: PMC7488041
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
364Références
Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2016 Apr-Jun;30(2):125-7
pubmed: 27330390
J Ophthalmol. 2013;2013:196215
pubmed: 23970955
J Curr Glaucoma Pract. 2012 Sep-Dec;6(3):139-42
pubmed: 26997770
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017 Oct;255(10):2001-2008
pubmed: 28735422
Clin Ophthalmol. 2016 Mar 30;10:547-53
pubmed: 27099461
Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2017 Sep-Oct;80(5):304-308
pubmed: 29160541
Am J Ophthalmol. 2015 Sep;160(3):516-521.e2
pubmed: 26032191
Am J Ophthalmol. 2016 Mar;163:75-82.e3
pubmed: 26596400
Am J Ophthalmol. 2003 Jun;135(6):821-9
pubmed: 12788122
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002 Oct;120(10):1268-79
pubmed: 12365904
BMJ Open. 2014 May 02;4(5):e004560
pubmed: 24793249
J Glaucoma. 2015 Sep;24(7):498-502
pubmed: 24326968
Ophthalmology. 2008 Jun;115(6):1089-98
pubmed: 18519069
J Glaucoma. 2013 Aug;22(6):433-8
pubmed: 21673598
Ophthalmology. 2011 Nov;118(11):2172-9
pubmed: 21906813
BMC Ophthalmol. 2016 Jun 08;16:83
pubmed: 27277579
Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2009 Mar;53(2):114-119
pubmed: 19333694
Ophthalmology. 2005 Oct;112(10):1801-8
pubmed: 16111757
Ophthalmology. 2001 Jul;108(7):1323-7
pubmed: 11425695
Ophthalmology. 2015 Aug;122(8):1615-24
pubmed: 26092196
Am J Ophthalmol. 2012 May;153(5):804-814.e1
pubmed: 22244522
Am J Ophthalmol. 2012 May;153(5):789-803.e2
pubmed: 22245458
Ophthalmology. 2001 Mar;108(3):621-6
pubmed: 11237919
Clin Exp Optom. 2005 Mar;88(2):89-96
pubmed: 15807640
J Glaucoma. 2014 Feb;23(2):109-14
pubmed: 23059483
Clin Plast Surg. 2003 Jan;30(1):37-45
pubmed: 12636214
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018 Nov;256(11):2191-2200
pubmed: 30171351
J Glaucoma. 2001 Dec;10(6):493-6
pubmed: 11740221
Am J Ophthalmol. 2017 Apr;176:118-126
pubmed: 28104418