Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Advances in Therapy
Published in: Advances in Therapy 4/2017

Open Access 01-04-2017 | Review

A Review of the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Implant and Comparison with Other Surgical Operations

Authors: Ivano Riva, Gloria Roberti, Andreas Katsanos, Francesco Oddone, Luciano Quaranta

Published in: Advances in Therapy | Issue 4/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

The Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) is a popular glaucoma drainage implant used for the control of intraocular pressure in patients with glaucoma. While in the past AGV implantation was reserved for glaucoma patients poorly controlled after one or more filtration procedures, mounting evidence has recently encouraged its use as a primary surgery in selected cases. AGV has been demonstrated to be safe and effective in reducing intraocular pressure in patients with primary or secondary refractory glaucoma. Compared to other glaucoma surgeries, AGV implantation has shown favorable efficacy and safety. The aim of this article is to review the results of studies directly comparing AGV with other surgical procedures in patients with glaucoma.
Literature
1.
Minckler DS, Vedula SS, Li TJ et al. Aqueous shunts for glaucoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006:CD004918.
2.
Assaad MH, Baerveldt G, Rockwood EJ. Glaucoma drainage devices: pros and cons. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1999;10:147–53.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, et al. Treatment outcomes in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) study after five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(789–803):e782.
4.
Huang MC, Netland PA, Coleman AL, et al. Intermediate-term clinical experience with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;127:27–33.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Prum BE Jr, Rosenberg LF, Gedde SJ, et al. Primary open-angle glaucoma preferred practice pattern((R)) guidelines. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:P41–111.CrossRefPubMed
6.
European Glaucoma Society. Terminology and guidelines for glaucoma. 4th ed. Savona: European Glaucoma Society; 2014.
7.
Chow K, Mora J. Practice preferences for glaucoma drainage device implantation and cyclodestruction in Australia and New Zealand. J Glaucoma. 2012;21:199–205.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Joshi AB, Parrish RK 2nd, Feuer WF. 2002 survey of the American Glaucoma Society: practice preferences for glaucoma surgery and antifibrotic use. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:172–4.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Molteno AC, Bevin TH, Herbison P, Husni MA. Long-term results of primary trabeculectomies and Molteno implants for primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129:1444–50.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Gedde SJ, Singh K, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ. Tube versus trabeculectomy study G. The tube versus trabeculectomy study: interpretation of results and application to clinical practice. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2012;23:118–26.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Caprioli J. The tube versus trabeculectomy study: why its findings may not change clinical practice? Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151(742–744):e741.
12.
Nguyen QH. Primary surgical management refractory glaucoma: tubes as initial surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20:122–5.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Coleman AL, Hill R, Wilson MR, et al. Initial clinical experience with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Am J Ophthalmol. 1995;120:23–31.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Patel S, Pasquale LR. Glaucoma drainage devices: a review of the past, present, and future. Semin Ophthalmol. 2010;25:265–70.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Wilson MR, Mendis U, Paliwal A, Haynatzka V. Long-term follow-up of primary glaucoma surgery with Ahmed glaucoma valve implant versus trabeculectomy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:464–70.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Quaranta L, Riva I, Floriani IC. Outcomes of using a sutureless bovine pericardial patch graft for Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2013;23:738–42.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Tran DH, Souza C, Ang MJ, et al. Comparison of long-term surgical success of Ahmed valve implant versus trabeculectomy in open-angle glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93:1504–9.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Da Mata A, Burk SE, Netland PA, et al. Management of uveitic glaucoma with Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:2168–72.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Papadaki TG, Zacharopoulos IP, Pasquale LR, et al. Long-term results of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation for uveitic glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144:62–9.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Yalvac IS, Eksioglu U, Satana B, Duman S. Long-term results of Ahmed glaucoma valve and Molteno implant in neovascular glaucoma. Eye (Lond). 2007;21:65–70.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Netland PA, Ishida K, Boyle JW. The Ahmed glaucoma valve in patients with and without neovascular glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2010;19:581–6.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Ma KT, Yang JY, Kim JH, et al. Surgical results of Ahmed valve implantation with intraoperative bevacizumab injection in patients with neovascular glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2012;21:331–6.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Ishida K, Ahmed II, Netland PA. Ahmed glaucoma valve surgical outcomes in eyes with and without silicone oil endotamponade. J Glaucoma. 2009;18:325–30.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Gupta S, Chaurasia AK, Chawla R, et al. Long-term outcomes of glaucoma drainage devices for glaucoma post-vitreoretinal surgery with silicone oil insertion: a prospective evaluation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;254:2449–54.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Das JC, Chaudhuri Z, Sharma P, Bhomaj S. The Ahmed glaucoma valve in refractory glaucoma: experiences in Indian eyes. Eye (Lond). 2005;19:183–90.CrossRef
26.
Souza C, Tran DH, Loman J, et al. Long-term outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in refractory glaucomas. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144:893–900.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Wishart PK, Choudhary A, Wong D. Ahmed glaucoma valves in refractory glaucoma: a 7-year audit. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94:1174–9.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Kim J, Allingham RR, Hall J, et al. Clinical experience with a novel glaucoma drainage implant. J Glaucoma. 2014;23:e91–7.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Coleman AL, Smyth RJ, Wilson MR, Tam M. Initial clinical experience with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in pediatric patients. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:186–91.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Japanese Glaucoma Society. Guidelines for glaucoma. 2nd ed. Tokyo: Japan Glaucoma Society; 2006.
31.
Wilson MR, Mendis U, Smith SD, Paliwal A. Ahmed glaucoma valve implant vs trabeculectomy in the surgical treatment of glaucoma: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:267–73.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Mahroo OA, Stanbury R, Lim KS. Were the groups in the trabeculectomy versus Ahmed valve study really comparable? Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94:1551–2.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Shen CC, Salim S, Du H, Netland PA. Trabeculectomy versus Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in neovascular glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol. 2011;5:281–6.PubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Simha A, Braganza A, Abraham L, Samuel P, Lindsley K. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for neovascular glaucoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013:CD007920.
35.
Elmekawey H, Khafagy A. Intracameral ranibizumab and subsequent mitomycin C augmented trabeculectomy in neovascular glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2014;23:437–40.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Kitnarong N, Sriyakul C, Chinwattanakul S. A prospective study to evaluate intravitreous ranibizumab as adjunctive treatment for trabeculectomy in neovascular glaucoma. Ophthalmol Ther. 2015;4:33–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Liu L, Xu Y, Huang Z, Wang X. Intravitreal ranibizumab injection combined trabeculectomy versus Ahmed valve surgery in the treatment of neovascular glaucoma: assessment of efficacy and complications. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016;16:65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Gandolfi S, Traverso CF, Bron A, et al. Short-term results of a miniature draining implant for glaucoma in combined surgery with phacoemulsification. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl. 2002;236:66.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Traverso CE, De Feo F, Messas-Kaplan A, et al. Long term effect on IOP of a stainless steel glaucoma drainage implant (Ex-PRESS) in combined surgery with phacoemulsification. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:425–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Wamsley S, Moster MR, Rai S, Alvim HS, Fontanarosa J. Results of the use of the Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma implant in technically challenging, advanced glaucoma cases: a clinical pilot study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:1049–51.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Stewart RM, Diamond JG, Ashmore ED, Ayyala RS. Complications following ex-press glaucoma shunt implantation. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140:340–1.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Stein JD, Herndon LW, Brent Bond J, Challa P. Exposure of Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma devices: case series and technique for tube shunt removal. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:704–6.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Dahan E, Carmichael TR. Implantation of a miniature glaucoma device under a scleral flap. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:98–102.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Buys YM. Trabeculectomy with ExPRESS: weighing the benefits and cost. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2013;24:111–8.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Wagschal LD, Trope GE, Jinapriya D, Jin YP, Buys YM. Prospective randomized study comparing Ex-PRESS to trabeculectomy: 1-year results. J Glaucoma. 2015;24:624–9.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Gonzalez-Rodriguez JM, Trope GE, Drori-Wagschal L, Jinapriya D, Buys YM. Comparison of trabeculectomy versus Ex-PRESS: 3-year follow-up. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100:1269–73.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Patel HY, Wagschal LD, Trope GE, Buys YM. Economic analysis of the Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma device versus trabeculectomy. J Glaucoma. 2014;23:385–90.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Zhang M, Li B, Sun Y. EX-PRESS and ahmed glaucoma valve in treatment of refractory glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94:e382–3.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Waisbourd M, Fischer N, Shalev H, et al. Trabeculectomy with Ex-PRESS implant versus Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation-a comparative study. Int J Ophthalmol. 2016;9:1415–20.PubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Syed HM, Law SK, Nam SH, et al. Baerveldt-350 implant versus Ahmed valve for refractory glaucoma: a case-controlled comparison. J Glaucoma. 2004;13:38–45.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Tsai JC, Johnson CC, Dietrich MS. The Ahmed shunt versus the Baerveldt shunt for refractory glaucoma: a single-surgeon comparison of outcome. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1814–21.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Tsai JC, Johnson CC, Kammer JA, Dietrich MS. The Ahmed shunt versus the Baerveldt shunt for refractory glaucoma II: longer-term outcomes from a single surgeon. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:913–7.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Christakis PG, Tsai JC, Zurakowski D, et al. The Ahmed versus Baerveldt study: design, baseline patient characteristics, and intraoperative complications. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:2172–9.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Christakis PG, Kalenak JW, Zurakowski D, et al. The Ahmed versus Baerveldt study: one-year treatment outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:2180–9.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Christakis PG, Tsai JC, Kalenak JW, et al. The Ahmed versus Baerveldt study: three-year treatment outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:2232–40.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Barton K, Gedde SJ, Budenz DL, et al. The Ahmed Baerveldt comparison study methodology, baseline patient characteristics, and intraoperative complications. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:435–42.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Budenz DL, Barton K, Feuer WJ, et al. Treatment outcomes in the Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study after 1 year of follow-up. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:443–52.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Barton K, Feuer WJ, Budenz DL, et al. Three-year treatment outcomes in the Ahmed Baerveldt comparison study. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(1547–1557):e1541.
59.
Budenz DL, Barton K, Gedde SJ, et al. Five-year treatment outcomes in the Ahmed Baerveldt comparison study. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:308–16.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Budenz DL, Feuer WJ, Barton K, et al. Postoperative complications in the Ahmed Baerveldt comparison study during five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;163(75–82):e73.
61.
Wang YW, Wang PB, Zeng C, Xia XB. Comparison of the Ahmed glaucoma valve with the Baerveldt glaucoma implant: a meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmol. 2015;15:132.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
62.
Ayyala RS, Zurakowski D, Monshizadeh R, et al. Comparison of double-plate Molteno and Ahmed glaucoma valve in patients with advanced uncontrolled glaucoma. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 2002;33:94–101.PubMed
63.
Nassiri N, Kamali G, Rahnavardi M, et al. Ahmed glaucoma valve and single-plate Molteno implants in treatment of refractory glaucoma: a comparative study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149:893–902.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Taglia DP, Perkins TW, Gangnon R, Heatley GA, Kaufman PL. Comparison of the Ahmed Glaucoma valve, the Krupin eye valve with disk, and the double-plate Molteno implant. J Glaucoma. 2002;11:347–53.CrossRefPubMed
65.
Bloom PA, Tsai JC, Sharma K, et al. “Cyclodiode”. Trans-scleral diode laser cyclophotocoagulation in the treatment of advanced refractory glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:1508–19 (discussion 1519–1520).CrossRefPubMed
66.
Schlote T, Derse M, Rassmann K, et al. Efficacy and safety of contact transscleral diode laser cyclophotocoagulation for advanced glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2001;10:294–301.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Feldman RM, el-Harazi SM, LoRusso FJ, et al. Histopathologic findings following contact transscleral semiconductor diode laser cyclophotocoagulation in a human eye. J Glaucoma. 1997;6:139–40.PubMed
68.
69.
Yildirim N, Yalvac IS, Sahin A, Ozer A, Bozca T. A comparative study between diode laser cyclophotocoagulation and the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in neovascular glaucoma: a long-term follow-up. J Glaucoma. 2009;18:192–6.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Lin SC. Endoscopic and transscleral cyclophotocoagulation for the treatment of refractory glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2008;17:238–47.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Patel A, Thompson JT, Michels RG, Quigley HA. Endolaser treatment of the ciliary body for uncontrolled glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1986;93:825–30.CrossRefPubMed
72.
73.
Chen J, Cohn RA, Lin SC, Cortes AE, Alvarado JA. Endoscopic photocoagulation of the ciliary body for treatment of refractory glaucomas. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;124:787–96.CrossRefPubMed
74.
Lima FE, Magacho L, Carvalho DM, Susanna R Jr, Avila MP. A prospective, comparative study between endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation and the Ahmed drainage implant in refractory glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2004;13:233–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A Review of the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Implant and Comparison with Other Surgical Operations
Authors
Ivano Riva
Gloria Roberti
Andreas Katsanos
Francesco Oddone
Luciano Quaranta
Publication date
01-04-2017
Publisher
Springer Healthcare
Published in
Advances in Therapy / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0741-238X
Electronic ISSN: 1865-8652
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-017-0503-1

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Advances in Therapy 4/2017 Go to the issue

Original Research

Evaluation of the Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness of IDegLira Versus Continued Up-Titration of Insulin Glargine U100 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the USA

Erratum

Erratum to: A Randomized, Clinical Trial to Evaluate Efficacy and Tolerability of Trypsin:Chymotrypsin as Compared to Serratiopeptidase and Trypsin:Bromelain:Rutoside in Wound Management

Review

The Potential Role for Early Biomarker Testing as Part of a Modern, Multidisciplinary Approach to Sjögren’s Syndrome Diagnosis

Original Research

Expert System for Bone Scan Interpretation Improves Progression Assessment in Bone Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Original Research

Retrospective Study on the Impact of Adherence in Achieving Glycemic Goals in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients Receiving Canagliflozin

Original Research

Fixed-Dose Triple Combination of Antihypertensive Drugs Improves Blood Pressure Control: From Clinical Trials to Clinical Practice
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

Read more

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits