Andrew K Bailey1, Steven R Sarkisian. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Oklahoma Health Science Center, Dean McGee Eye Institute, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of glaucoma drainage devices (GDD) in the treatment of glaucoma has become widely accepted for cases of refractory glaucoma. Expansion in the indications for implantation of GDD beyond refractory glaucoma is increasingly common. As such, tube implant complications are reviewed to aid in prevention and improve their management. RECENT FINDINGS: Findings of the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy study resulted in an expanded use of tube implants in cases of refractory glaucoma. As interest in GDD implantation flourished, so too, did investigative comparison between devices; which includes the Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison study and Ahmed Verses Baerveldt study. Comparative analysis of success and complication rates between implantable devices is not only expanding the technology of tube implants, but also building a body of evidence that tube implantation has a strong safety profile and usage among specialists will continue to increase and indications will evolve. Complications resulting from GDD implantation include hypotony, postoperative elevated intraocular pressure, tube erosion, diplopia, motility disturbances, and corneal decompensation. SUMMARY: Tube implant use is increasing and indications are expanding beyond refractory glaucoma. Understanding differences in GDD, their complications and management will result in improved patient care.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of glaucoma drainage devices (GDD) in the treatment of glaucoma has become widely accepted for cases of refractory glaucoma. Expansion in the indications for implantation of GDD beyond refractory glaucoma is increasingly common. As such, tube implant complications are reviewed to aid in prevention and improve their management. RECENT FINDINGS: Findings of the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy study resulted in an expanded use of tube implants in cases of refractory glaucoma. As interest in GDD implantation flourished, so too, did investigative comparison between devices; which includes the Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison study and Ahmed Verses Baerveldt study. Comparative analysis of success and complication rates between implantable devices is not only expanding the technology of tube implants, but also building a body of evidence that tube implantation has a strong safety profile and usage among specialists will continue to increase and indications will evolve. Complications resulting from GDD implantation include hypotony, postoperative elevated intraocular pressure, tube erosion, diplopia, motility disturbances, and corneal decompensation. SUMMARY: Tube implant use is increasing and indications are expanding beyond refractory glaucoma. Understanding differences in GDD, their complications and management will result in improved patient care.
Authors: Sapna Sinha; Allen Y Ganjei; Melih Ustaoglu; Zeba A Syed; Daniel Lee; Jonathan S Myers; Scott J Fudemberg; Reza Razeghinejad Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2021-01-30 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Esma Islamaj; Luc Van Vught; Caroline P Jordaan-Kuip; Koenraad A Vermeer; Teresa A Ferreira; Peter W T De Waard; Hans G Lemij; Jan-Willem M Beenakker Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-20 Impact factor: 3.752