PURPOSE: To study the long-term results of the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in patients with complicated glaucoma in whom short-term results have been reported. METHODS: In this multicenter study, we analyzed the long-term outcome of a cohort of 60 eyes from 60 patients in whom the Ahmed glaucoma valve was implanted. Failure was characterized by at least one of the following: intraocular pressure greater than 21 mm Hg at both of the last two visits less than 6 mm Hg at both of the last two visits, loss of light perception, additional glaucoma surgery, devastating complications, and removal or replacement of the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Devastating complications included chronic hypotony, retinal detachment, malignant glaucoma, endophthalmitis, and phthisis bulbi; we also report results that add corneal complications (corneal decompensation or edema, corneal graft failure) as defining a devastating complication. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time for the 60 eyes was 30.5 months (range, 2.1 to 63.5). When corneal complications were included in the definition of failure, 26 eyes (43%) were considered failures. Cumulative probabilities of success at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were 76%, 68%, 54%, and 45%, respectively. When corneal complications were excluded from the definition of failure, 13 eyes (21.5%) were considered failures. Cumulative probabilities of success at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were 87%, 82%, 76%, and 76%, respectively. Most of the failures after 12 months of postoperative follow-up were because of corneal complications. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term performance of the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant is comparable to other drainage devices. More than 12 months after the implantation of the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant, the most frequent adverse outcome was corneal decompensation or corneal graft failure. These corneal problems may be secondary to the type of eyes that have drainage devices or to the drainage device itself. Further investigation is needed to identify the reasons that corneal problems follow drainage device implantation.
PURPOSE: To study the long-term results of the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in patients with complicated glaucoma in whom short-term results have been reported. METHODS: In this multicenter study, we analyzed the long-term outcome of a cohort of 60 eyes from 60 patients in whom the Ahmed glaucoma valve was implanted. Failure was characterized by at least one of the following: intraocular pressure greater than 21 mm Hg at both of the last two visits less than 6 mm Hg at both of the last two visits, loss of light perception, additional glaucoma surgery, devastating complications, and removal or replacement of the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Devastating complications included chronic hypotony, retinal detachment, malignant glaucoma, endophthalmitis, and phthisis bulbi; we also report results that add corneal complications (corneal decompensation or edema, corneal graft failure) as defining a devastating complication. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time for the 60 eyes was 30.5 months (range, 2.1 to 63.5). When corneal complications were included in the definition of failure, 26 eyes (43%) were considered failures. Cumulative probabilities of success at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were 76%, 68%, 54%, and 45%, respectively. When corneal complications were excluded from the definition of failure, 13 eyes (21.5%) were considered failures. Cumulative probabilities of success at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were 87%, 82%, 76%, and 76%, respectively. Most of the failures after 12 months of postoperative follow-up were because of corneal complications. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term performance of the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant is comparable to other drainage devices. More than 12 months after the implantation of the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant, the most frequent adverse outcome was corneal decompensation or corneal graft failure. These corneal problems may be secondary to the type of eyes that have drainage devices or to the drainage device itself. Further investigation is needed to identify the reasons that corneal problems follow drainage device implantation.
Authors: Carlton Robert Fenzl; Majid Moshirfar; Adam John Gess; Valliammai Muthappan; Jason Goldsmith Journal: World J Clin Cases Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 1.337
Authors: Manuel Diaz-Llopis; David Salom; Salvador García-Delpech; Patricia Udaondo; Jose Maria Millan; J Fernando Arevalo Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2010-05-06
Authors: Oscar Albis-Donado; Félix Gil-Carrasco; Rafael Romero-Quijada; Ravi Thomas Journal: Indian J Ophthalmol Date: 2010 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.848