Top

International Ophthalmology

Published in:

01-12-2024 | Glaucoma | Original Paper

Clinical outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in primary open-angle glaucoma and pseudoexfoliative glaucoma

Authors: Yasemin Un, Serhat Imamoglu

Published in: International Ophthalmology | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the clinical outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implantation in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and pseudoexfoliative glaucoma (PEXG).

Methods

The patients who underwent AGV implantation for POAG and PEXG between January 2015 and December 2021 in a single tertiary center eye clinic were reviewed retrospectively. Thirty-one eyes with the diagnosis of POAG constituted Group 1 and 40 eyes with the diagnosis of PEXG constituted Group 2. The primary outcome measures were intraocular pressure (IOP) changes after AGV implantation and surgical success at the last visit. We evaluated complete and qualified surgical success using the following three criteria: (1) IOP ≤ 21mmH g, (2) IOP ≤ 18 mmHg, and (3) IOP ≤ 15 mmHg, as well as the absence of any serious complications, such as light perception loss and phthisis bulbi, and additional de novo glaucoma surgery.

Results

The mean follow-up times were 25.2 (± 21.4) months and 27.6 (± 19.8) months for Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p > 0.05). In Groups 1 and 2, the mean preoperative IOPs were 31.9 ± 9.4 mmHg and 32.3 ± 8.4 mmHg, respectively, which significantly reduced to 14.5 ± 0.7 mmHg and 11.6 ± 0.6 mmHg, respectively at the last postoperative visit (p < 0.001 for both). The mean IOP value at the last visit was statistically significantly lower in Group 2 (p = 0.006). At the last visit, the number of eyes with qualified success according to criteria 1, 2, and 3 was 26 (83.9%), 25 (80.6%), and 18 (58.1%), respectively, in Group 1 and 39 (97.5%), 39 (97.5%), and 32 (80%), respectively, in Group 2. The comparison of the qualified success rates showed statistically significantly higher rates in Group 2 for criterion 2 (p = 0.038).

Conclusion

AGV implantation had high success rates in both POAG and PEXG, but at the final visit, lower IOP levels were reached in the latter.

Ritch R, Schlötzer-Schrehardt U (2001) Exfoliation syndrome. Surv Ophthalmol 45(4):265–315CrossRefPubMed

Henry JC, Krupin T, Schmitt M et al (1987) Long-term follow-up of pseudoexfoliation and the development of elevated intraocular pressure. Ophthalmology [Internet] 94(5):545–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(87)33413-XCrossRefPubMed

Vesti E, Kivela T (2000) Exfoliation syndrome and exfoliation glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 19(3):345–368CrossRefPubMed

Pose-Bazarra S, López-Valladares MJ, López-de-Ullibarri I et al (2021) Surgical and laser interventions for pseudoexfoliation glaucoma systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Eye [Internet] 35(6):1551–1561. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-021-01424-1CrossRefPubMed

Coleman AL (2012) Advances in glaucoma treatment and management: Surgery. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53(5):2491–2494CrossRef

Bar-David L, Blumenthal EZ (2018) Evolution of glaucoma surgery in the last 25 years. Rambam Maimonides Med J 9(3):e0024CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Broadway DC, Chang LP (2001) Trabeculectomy, risk factors for failure and the preoperative state of the conjunctiva. J Glaucoma 10(3):237–249CrossRefPubMed

Ramulu PY, Corcoran KJ, Corcoran SL et al (2007) Utilization of various glaucoma surgeries and procedures in medicare beneficiaries from 1995 to 2004. Ophthalmology 114(12):2265–2271CrossRefPubMed

Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ et al (2005) The tube versus trabeculectomy study: design and baseline characteristics of study patients. Am J Ophthalmol 140(2):275.e1-275.e14CrossRef

10.

Gedde S, Anderson D, Budenz D et al (2012) The tube versus trabeculectomy study: interpretation of results and application to clinical practice. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 23(2):118–126CrossRefPubMed

11.

Kugu S, Erdogan G, Sevim MS et al (2015) Efficacy of long scleral tunnel technique in preventing ahmed glaucoma valve tube exposure through conjunctiva. Semin Ophthalmol 30(1):1–5CrossRefPubMed

12.

Tsai JC, Budenz DL (2017) Five-year pooled data analysis of the Ahmed Baerveldt comparison study and the Ahmed versus Baerveldt study. Am J Ophthalmol [Internet] 176:118–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2017.01.003CrossRefPubMed

13.

Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Coleman AL et al (2004) Predictive factors for glaucomatous visual field progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Ophthalmology 111(9):1627–1635CrossRefPubMed

14.

Gaasterland DE, Blackwell B, Ederer F et al (2004) The advanced glaucoma intervention study (AGIS): 13. Comparison of treatment outcomes within race—10-year results. Ophthalmology 111(4):651–664CrossRefPubMed

15.

Gaasterland DE, Ederer F, Beck A et al (2000) The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9394(00)00538-9CrossRef

16.

Xie Z, Liu H, Du M et al (2019) Efficacy of ahmed glaucoma valve implantation on neovascular glaucoma. Int J Med Sci 16(10):1371–1376CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Ong SC, Aquino MC, Chew P et al (2020) Surgical outcomes of a second Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in Asian eyes with refractory glaucoma. J Ophthalmol 2020:8741301. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8741301CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Satana B, Yalvac IS, Sungur G et al (2015) Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation for uveitic glaucoma secondary to Behçet disease. J Glaucoma 24(8):607–612CrossRefPubMed

19.

Bao N, Jiang ZX, Coh P et al (2018) Long-term outcomes of uveitic glaucoma treated with Ahmed valve implant in a series of Chinese patients. Int J Ophthalmol 11(4):629–634PubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Pakravan M, Esfandiari H, Yazdani S et al (2019) Clinical outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in pediatric glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol 29(1):44–51CrossRefPubMed

21.

Kang YK, Shin JP, Kim DW (2022) Long-term surgical outcomes of Ahmed valve implantation in refractory glaucoma according to the type of glaucoma. BMC Ophthalmol [Internet] 22(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02493-wCrossRef

22.

Choo JQH, Chen ZD, Koh V, Liang S, Aquino CM, Sng C et al (2018) Outcomes and complications of Ahmed tube implantation in Asian Eyes. J Glaucoma 27(8):733–738CrossRefPubMed

23.

Ayyala RS, Zurakowski D, Smith JA et al (1998) A clinical study of the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in advanced glaucoma. Ophthalmology 105(10):1968–1976CrossRefPubMed

24.

Elhefney E, Mokbel T, Abou Samra W et al (2018) Long-term results of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in Egyptian population. Int J Ophthalmol 11(3):416–421PubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Sarkisian SR (2009) Tube shunt complications and their prevention. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 20(2):126–130CrossRefPubMed

26.

Erçalık NY, İmamoğlu S (2018) Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in vitrectomized eyes. J Ophthalmol 2018:9572805. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9572805

27.

Mitchell P, Wang JJ, Smith W (1997) Association of pseudoexfoliation syndrome with increased vascular risk. Am J Ophthalmol [Internet] 124(5):685–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9394(14)70908-0CrossRefPubMed

28.

Landers J, Martin K, Sarkies N et al (2012) A twenty-year follow-up study of trabeculectomy: risk factors and outcomes. Ophthalmology 119(4):694–702CrossRefPubMed

29.

Li F, Tang G, Zhang H et al (2020) The effects of trabeculectomy on pseudoexfoliation glaucoma and primary open-angle glaucoma. J Ophthalmol 2020:1723691. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1723691CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Okeke CO, Miller-Ellis E, Rojas M (2017) Trabectome success factors. Medicine (Baltimore) [Internet] 96(24):7061CrossRef

31.

Hengerer FH, Auffarth GU, Riffel C et al (2018) Prospective, non-randomized, 36-month study of second-generation trabecular micro-bypass stents with phacoemulsification in eyes with various types of glaucoma. Ophthalmol Ther [Internet] 7(2):405–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-018-0152-8CrossRefPubMed

32.

Quigley HA (2019) 21st century glaucoma care. Eye [Internet] 33(2):254–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-018-0227-8CrossRefPubMed

33.

Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Lichter PR et al (2009) Visual field progression in the collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study. The impact of treatment and other baseline factors. Ophthalmology [Internet]. 116(2):200-207.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.08.051CrossRefPubMed

Title: Clinical outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in primary open-angle glaucoma and pseudoexfoliative glaucoma
Authors: Yasemin Un
Serhat Imamoglu
Publication date: 01-12-2024
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Keyword: Glaucoma
Published in: International Ophthalmology / Issue 1/2024
Print ISSN: 0165-5701
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2630
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-024-02918-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Clinical outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in primary open-angle glaucoma and pseudoexfoliative glaucoma

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Determination of progressive endothelial cell loss after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation

Effects of sodium valproate and levetiracetam on posterior segment parameters in children with epilepsy

The protective effect of vitamin A palmitate eye gel on the ocular surface during general anaesthesia surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Ocular surface and meibomian gland evaluation in euthyroid Graves’ ophthalmopathy

Prevalence of common and rare ophthalmic findings in adults attending a medical survey institute

Effects of injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF) on pterygium surgery with conjunctival autograft