Glaucoma drainage implants

A critical comparison of types

Kenneth S. Schwartz, Richard K Lee, Steven J Gedde

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

129 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose of review: The purpose of this review is to critically compare the various glaucoma drainage implants in popular use. Recent findings: Glaucoma drainage implants are being increasingly utilized in the surgical management of glaucoma. Comparisons between the various drainage implants are difficult because most clinical data are derived from retrospective studies with different study populations, follow-up periods, and criteria defining success. The type of glaucoma under treatment is a major factor influencing surgical outcomes. The resistance to aqueous flow through glaucoma drainage implants occurs across the fibrous capsule around the end plate, and the major determinants of the final intraocular pressure are capsular thickness and filtration surface area. The use of antifibrotic agents as adjuncts to drainage implant surgery has not proven effective in modulating capsular thickness. Valved implants appear to reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk of hypotony. Bleb encapsulation is more frequently seen with the Ahmed valve implant than other drainage implants. Diplopia was a common complication with the Baerveldt glaucoma implant after its introduction, but design modifications have markedly reduced the incidence of this complication. Summary: There are several glaucoma drainage implants that are currently available, and all have been shown to be safe and effective in reducing intraocular pressure. Greater pressure reduction may be achieved with implants with larger end plates, and valved implants appear to reduce the risk of postoperative hypotony.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)181-189
Number of pages9
JournalCurrent Opinion in Ophthalmology
Volume17
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2006

Fingerprint

Glaucoma Drainage Implants
Glaucoma
Drainage
Intraocular Pressure
Diplopia
Blister
Capsules
Retrospective Studies
Pressure
Incidence
Population

Keywords

  • Antifibrotic
  • Drainage implants
  • Glaucoma
  • Intraocular pressure
  • Surgical

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Glaucoma drainage implants : A critical comparison of types. / Schwartz, Kenneth S.; Lee, Richard K; Gedde, Steven J.

In: Current Opinion in Ophthalmology, Vol. 17, No. 2, 01.04.2006, p. 181-189.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{cedee56fe42141a3aa5b1536a5a254bf,
title = "Glaucoma drainage implants: A critical comparison of types",
abstract = "Purpose of review: The purpose of this review is to critically compare the various glaucoma drainage implants in popular use. Recent findings: Glaucoma drainage implants are being increasingly utilized in the surgical management of glaucoma. Comparisons between the various drainage implants are difficult because most clinical data are derived from retrospective studies with different study populations, follow-up periods, and criteria defining success. The type of glaucoma under treatment is a major factor influencing surgical outcomes. The resistance to aqueous flow through glaucoma drainage implants occurs across the fibrous capsule around the end plate, and the major determinants of the final intraocular pressure are capsular thickness and filtration surface area. The use of antifibrotic agents as adjuncts to drainage implant surgery has not proven effective in modulating capsular thickness. Valved implants appear to reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk of hypotony. Bleb encapsulation is more frequently seen with the Ahmed valve implant than other drainage implants. Diplopia was a common complication with the Baerveldt glaucoma implant after its introduction, but design modifications have markedly reduced the incidence of this complication. Summary: There are several glaucoma drainage implants that are currently available, and all have been shown to be safe and effective in reducing intraocular pressure. Greater pressure reduction may be achieved with implants with larger end plates, and valved implants appear to reduce the risk of postoperative hypotony.",
keywords = "Antifibrotic, Drainage implants, Glaucoma, Intraocular pressure, Surgical",
author = "Schwartz, {Kenneth S.} and Lee, {Richard K} and Gedde, {Steven J}",
year = "2006",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/01.icu.0000193080.55240.7e",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "181--189",
journal = "Current Opinion in Ophthalmology",
issn = "1040-8738",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Glaucoma drainage implants

T2 - A critical comparison of types

AU - Schwartz, Kenneth S.

AU - Lee, Richard K

AU - Gedde, Steven J

PY - 2006/4/1

Y1 - 2006/4/1

N2 - Purpose of review: The purpose of this review is to critically compare the various glaucoma drainage implants in popular use. Recent findings: Glaucoma drainage implants are being increasingly utilized in the surgical management of glaucoma. Comparisons between the various drainage implants are difficult because most clinical data are derived from retrospective studies with different study populations, follow-up periods, and criteria defining success. The type of glaucoma under treatment is a major factor influencing surgical outcomes. The resistance to aqueous flow through glaucoma drainage implants occurs across the fibrous capsule around the end plate, and the major determinants of the final intraocular pressure are capsular thickness and filtration surface area. The use of antifibrotic agents as adjuncts to drainage implant surgery has not proven effective in modulating capsular thickness. Valved implants appear to reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk of hypotony. Bleb encapsulation is more frequently seen with the Ahmed valve implant than other drainage implants. Diplopia was a common complication with the Baerveldt glaucoma implant after its introduction, but design modifications have markedly reduced the incidence of this complication. Summary: There are several glaucoma drainage implants that are currently available, and all have been shown to be safe and effective in reducing intraocular pressure. Greater pressure reduction may be achieved with implants with larger end plates, and valved implants appear to reduce the risk of postoperative hypotony.

AB - Purpose of review: The purpose of this review is to critically compare the various glaucoma drainage implants in popular use. Recent findings: Glaucoma drainage implants are being increasingly utilized in the surgical management of glaucoma. Comparisons between the various drainage implants are difficult because most clinical data are derived from retrospective studies with different study populations, follow-up periods, and criteria defining success. The type of glaucoma under treatment is a major factor influencing surgical outcomes. The resistance to aqueous flow through glaucoma drainage implants occurs across the fibrous capsule around the end plate, and the major determinants of the final intraocular pressure are capsular thickness and filtration surface area. The use of antifibrotic agents as adjuncts to drainage implant surgery has not proven effective in modulating capsular thickness. Valved implants appear to reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk of hypotony. Bleb encapsulation is more frequently seen with the Ahmed valve implant than other drainage implants. Diplopia was a common complication with the Baerveldt glaucoma implant after its introduction, but design modifications have markedly reduced the incidence of this complication. Summary: There are several glaucoma drainage implants that are currently available, and all have been shown to be safe and effective in reducing intraocular pressure. Greater pressure reduction may be achieved with implants with larger end plates, and valved implants appear to reduce the risk of postoperative hypotony.

KW - Antifibrotic

KW - Drainage implants

KW - Glaucoma

KW - Intraocular pressure

KW - Surgical

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33646934641&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33646934641&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.icu.0000193080.55240.7e

DO - 10.1097/01.icu.0000193080.55240.7e

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 181

EP - 189

JO - Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

JF - Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

SN - 1040-8738

IS - 2

ER -