OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of polypropylene and silicone Ahmed glaucoma valves (AGVs) over 1 year of follow-up. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty consecutive patients with polypropylene and 49 consecutive patients with silicone AGV implantation. METHODS: Our hospital instituted a formulary conversion of the glaucoma aqueous drainage device from polypropylene to silicone AGVs in January 2003. We reviewed the polypropylene AGVs within 7 months before and the silicone AGVs within 7 months after the date of conversion performed on patients with glaucoma refractory to medical treatment and filtering procedures, without previous drainage devices or cyclodestructive procedures, and with a minimum of 12 months' follow-up. Surgical success was defined as an intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction of > or =20% and a final IOP of >5 and <22 mmHg, without additional surgical intervention for IOP control, loss of light perception, or serious complications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The 2 groups were compared for IOP control, visual outcome, complication rate, and surgical success rate. RESULTS: Significant IOP reductions occurred after polypropylene AGV implantation (from 32.4+/-11.3 mmHg to 16.5+/-6.9 mmHg, P<0.0001) and silicone AGV implantation (from 32.6+/-12.6 mmHg to 14.7+/-6.9 mmHg, P<0.0001). The silicone group had a lower mean IOP than the polypropylene group at all postoperative visits, but the differences were significant only at 3 months postoperatively (P = 0.014). In addition, the silicone group was associated with a rate of insufficient IOP control as the reason of failure (IOP of > or =22 mmHg or IOP reduction of <20%) lower (4.1%) than that of the polypropylene group (20.0%, P = 0.015), but a rate of non-tube related serious complications (16.3%) higher than that of the polypropylene AGV (4.0%, P = 0.042). CONCLUSION: After 1 year of follow-up, the silicone AGV is at least as effective as the polypropylene AGV in IOP reduction but may be associated with a higher rate of complications. These differences are important for surgeons converting to use of the silicone AGV in patients with glaucoma refractory to other forms of treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of polypropylene and silicone Ahmed glaucoma valves (AGVs) over 1 year of follow-up. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty consecutive patients with polypropylene and 49 consecutive patients with silicone AGV implantation. METHODS: Our hospital instituted a formulary conversion of the glaucoma aqueous drainage device from polypropylene to silicone AGVs in January 2003. We reviewed the polypropylene AGVs within 7 months before and the silicone AGVs within 7 months after the date of conversion performed on patients with glaucoma refractory to medical treatment and filtering procedures, without previous drainage devices or cyclodestructive procedures, and with a minimum of 12 months' follow-up. Surgical success was defined as an intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction of > or =20% and a final IOP of >5 and <22 mmHg, without additional surgical intervention for IOP control, loss of light perception, or serious complications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The 2 groups were compared for IOP control, visual outcome, complication rate, and surgical success rate. RESULTS: Significant IOP reductions occurred after polypropylene AGV implantation (from 32.4+/-11.3 mmHg to 16.5+/-6.9 mmHg, P<0.0001) and silicone AGV implantation (from 32.6+/-12.6 mmHg to 14.7+/-6.9 mmHg, P<0.0001). The silicone group had a lower mean IOP than the polypropylene group at all postoperative visits, but the differences were significant only at 3 months postoperatively (P = 0.014). In addition, the silicone group was associated with a rate of insufficient IOP control as the reason of failure (IOP of > or =22 mmHg or IOP reduction of <20%) lower (4.1%) than that of the polypropylene group (20.0%, P = 0.015), but a rate of non-tube related serious complications (16.3%) higher than that of the polypropylene AGV (4.0%, P = 0.042). CONCLUSION: After 1 year of follow-up, the silicone AGV is at least as effective as the polypropylene AGV in IOP reduction but may be associated with a higher rate of complications. These differences are important for surgeons converting to use of the silicone AGV in patients with glaucoma refractory to other forms of treatment.
Authors: R Allemann; O Stachs; K Falke; W Schmidt; S Siewert; K Sternberg; B Chichkov; A Wree; K-P Schmitz; R F Guthoff Journal: Ophthalmologe Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 1.059
Authors: R F Guthoff; W Schmidt; D Buss; C Schultze; U Ruppin; O Stachs; K Sternberg; D Klee; B Chichkov; K-P Schmitz Journal: Ophthalmologe Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 1.059
Authors: Donald L Budenz; Keith Barton; William J Feuer; Joyce Schiffman; Vital P Costa; David G Godfrey; Yvonne M Buys Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2010-10-08 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Oscar Albis-Donado; Félix Gil-Carrasco; Rafael Romero-Quijada; Ravi Thomas Journal: Indian J Ophthalmol Date: 2010 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.848