Implantation of second glaucoma drainage devices after failure of primary devices

David G. Godfrey, Rohit Krishna, David Greenfield, Donald L. Budenz, Steven J Gedde, Ingrid U. Scott

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of implantation of a second glaucoma drainage device for eyes that have failed a primary device. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients receiving a primary glaucoma drainage device at Bascom Palmer Eye Institute from January 1987 to October 1998 were reviewed, of which 18 eyes of 18 patients were studied. Patients failing a primary glaucoma drainage procedure and receiving a second glaucoma drainage device were included in this study. The second eye in the same patient was excluded if a second drainage implant was required. All patients received a second device in a standardized fashion with the drainage tube inserted in the anterior chamber. Main outcome measures included: visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), antiglaucomatous medication, length of follow up, and surface area of glaucoma drainage device. Success was defined as an IOP less than or equal to 21 mm Hg with or without medications, and at least a 20% reduction in IOP, without the need for additional glaucoma procedures. RESULTS: The mean postoperative IOP (19.6 ± 9.4 mm Hg; range, 8-50 mm Hg) was significantly (P = 0.006) lower than the mean preoperative IOP (29.5 ± 8.1 mm Hg; range, 20-52 mm Hg) at last follow up (mean 19.6 ± 13.6 months; range, 6-47 months). The mean number of postoperative antiglaucomatous medications (2.2 ± 1.2; range 0-4) was statistically similar (P = 0.2) to mean preoperative number of antiglaucomatous medications (2.6 ± 1.2, range 1-4). Using Kaplan-Meier estimates, successful IOP reduction was observed in 89%, 83%, 63%, and 37% of eyes at 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. Four patients (21%) had a decline in visual acuity. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of secondary glaucoma drainage devices may be useful in eyes that have failed primary devices.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)37-43
Number of pages7
JournalOphthalmic Surgery and Lasers
Volume33
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 29 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Equipment Failure
Glaucoma
Drainage
Intraocular Pressure
Equipment and Supplies
Visual Acuity
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Anterior Chamber
Medical Records
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Implantation of second glaucoma drainage devices after failure of primary devices. / Godfrey, David G.; Krishna, Rohit; Greenfield, David; Budenz, Donald L.; Gedde, Steven J; Scott, Ingrid U.

In: Ophthalmic Surgery and Lasers, Vol. 33, No. 1, 29.01.2002, p. 37-43.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Godfrey, David G. ; Krishna, Rohit ; Greenfield, David ; Budenz, Donald L. ; Gedde, Steven J ; Scott, Ingrid U. / Implantation of second glaucoma drainage devices after failure of primary devices. In: Ophthalmic Surgery and Lasers. 2002 ; Vol. 33, No. 1. pp. 37-43.
@article{2f1dd7b008c040c3a00f0bab8ca1df37,
title = "Implantation of second glaucoma drainage devices after failure of primary devices",
abstract = "BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of implantation of a second glaucoma drainage device for eyes that have failed a primary device. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients receiving a primary glaucoma drainage device at Bascom Palmer Eye Institute from January 1987 to October 1998 were reviewed, of which 18 eyes of 18 patients were studied. Patients failing a primary glaucoma drainage procedure and receiving a second glaucoma drainage device were included in this study. The second eye in the same patient was excluded if a second drainage implant was required. All patients received a second device in a standardized fashion with the drainage tube inserted in the anterior chamber. Main outcome measures included: visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), antiglaucomatous medication, length of follow up, and surface area of glaucoma drainage device. Success was defined as an IOP less than or equal to 21 mm Hg with or without medications, and at least a 20{\%} reduction in IOP, without the need for additional glaucoma procedures. RESULTS: The mean postoperative IOP (19.6 ± 9.4 mm Hg; range, 8-50 mm Hg) was significantly (P = 0.006) lower than the mean preoperative IOP (29.5 ± 8.1 mm Hg; range, 20-52 mm Hg) at last follow up (mean 19.6 ± 13.6 months; range, 6-47 months). The mean number of postoperative antiglaucomatous medications (2.2 ± 1.2; range 0-4) was statistically similar (P = 0.2) to mean preoperative number of antiglaucomatous medications (2.6 ± 1.2, range 1-4). Using Kaplan-Meier estimates, successful IOP reduction was observed in 89{\%}, 83{\%}, 63{\%}, and 37{\%} of eyes at 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. Four patients (21{\%}) had a decline in visual acuity. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of secondary glaucoma drainage devices may be useful in eyes that have failed primary devices.",
author = "Godfrey, {David G.} and Rohit Krishna and David Greenfield and Budenz, {Donald L.} and Gedde, {Steven J} and Scott, {Ingrid U.}",
year = "2002",
month = "1",
day = "29",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "37--43",
journal = "Ophthalmic Surgery Lasers and Imaging Retina",
issn = "2325-8160",
publisher = "Slack Incorporated",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Implantation of second glaucoma drainage devices after failure of primary devices

AU - Godfrey, David G.

AU - Krishna, Rohit

AU - Greenfield, David

AU - Budenz, Donald L.

AU - Gedde, Steven J

AU - Scott, Ingrid U.

PY - 2002/1/29

Y1 - 2002/1/29

N2 - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of implantation of a second glaucoma drainage device for eyes that have failed a primary device. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients receiving a primary glaucoma drainage device at Bascom Palmer Eye Institute from January 1987 to October 1998 were reviewed, of which 18 eyes of 18 patients were studied. Patients failing a primary glaucoma drainage procedure and receiving a second glaucoma drainage device were included in this study. The second eye in the same patient was excluded if a second drainage implant was required. All patients received a second device in a standardized fashion with the drainage tube inserted in the anterior chamber. Main outcome measures included: visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), antiglaucomatous medication, length of follow up, and surface area of glaucoma drainage device. Success was defined as an IOP less than or equal to 21 mm Hg with or without medications, and at least a 20% reduction in IOP, without the need for additional glaucoma procedures. RESULTS: The mean postoperative IOP (19.6 ± 9.4 mm Hg; range, 8-50 mm Hg) was significantly (P = 0.006) lower than the mean preoperative IOP (29.5 ± 8.1 mm Hg; range, 20-52 mm Hg) at last follow up (mean 19.6 ± 13.6 months; range, 6-47 months). The mean number of postoperative antiglaucomatous medications (2.2 ± 1.2; range 0-4) was statistically similar (P = 0.2) to mean preoperative number of antiglaucomatous medications (2.6 ± 1.2, range 1-4). Using Kaplan-Meier estimates, successful IOP reduction was observed in 89%, 83%, 63%, and 37% of eyes at 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. Four patients (21%) had a decline in visual acuity. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of secondary glaucoma drainage devices may be useful in eyes that have failed primary devices.

AB - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of implantation of a second glaucoma drainage device for eyes that have failed a primary device. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients receiving a primary glaucoma drainage device at Bascom Palmer Eye Institute from January 1987 to October 1998 were reviewed, of which 18 eyes of 18 patients were studied. Patients failing a primary glaucoma drainage procedure and receiving a second glaucoma drainage device were included in this study. The second eye in the same patient was excluded if a second drainage implant was required. All patients received a second device in a standardized fashion with the drainage tube inserted in the anterior chamber. Main outcome measures included: visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), antiglaucomatous medication, length of follow up, and surface area of glaucoma drainage device. Success was defined as an IOP less than or equal to 21 mm Hg with or without medications, and at least a 20% reduction in IOP, without the need for additional glaucoma procedures. RESULTS: The mean postoperative IOP (19.6 ± 9.4 mm Hg; range, 8-50 mm Hg) was significantly (P = 0.006) lower than the mean preoperative IOP (29.5 ± 8.1 mm Hg; range, 20-52 mm Hg) at last follow up (mean 19.6 ± 13.6 months; range, 6-47 months). The mean number of postoperative antiglaucomatous medications (2.2 ± 1.2; range 0-4) was statistically similar (P = 0.2) to mean preoperative number of antiglaucomatous medications (2.6 ± 1.2, range 1-4). Using Kaplan-Meier estimates, successful IOP reduction was observed in 89%, 83%, 63%, and 37% of eyes at 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. Four patients (21%) had a decline in visual acuity. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of secondary glaucoma drainage devices may be useful in eyes that have failed primary devices.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036141661&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036141661&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11820661

AN - SCOPUS:0036141661

VL - 33

SP - 37

EP - 43

JO - Ophthalmic Surgery Lasers and Imaging Retina

JF - Ophthalmic Surgery Lasers and Imaging Retina

SN - 2325-8160

IS - 1

ER -