| Literature DB >> 26547746 |
Daniel B Moore1, Sandra Stinnett1, Glenn J Jaffe1, Sanjay Asrani2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the outcomes following placement of a fluocinolone acetonide implant (Retisert(®); Bausch & Lomb, Inc.) combined with an Ahmed™ glaucoma valve (New World Medical, Inc.) in eyes with uveitic glaucoma (UG Retisert) were different when compared to an Ahmed valve alone in eyes with uveitic glaucoma or primary open angle glaucoma (UG non-Retisert and POAG, respectively).Entities:
Keywords: Ahmed valve; Glaucoma; Glaucoma drainage device; Retisert; Uveitic glaucoma; Uveitis
Year: 2015 PMID: 26547746 PMCID: PMC4675733 DOI: 10.1007/s40123-015-0041-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ophthalmol Ther
Preoperative demographics and characteristics
| Characteristic | Uveitic–Retisert valve | Uveitic valve | POAG valve |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), mean ± SDa | 44.3 ± 20.0 | 51.0 ± 12.0 | 68.3 ± 12.2 |
| Gender, | |||
| Male | 7 (32) | 10 (63) | 12 (54) |
| Female | 15 (68) | 6 (38) | 10 (45) |
| Ahmed valve model, | |||
| S2 | 6 (27) | 9 (56) | 9 (41) |
| S3 | 1 (5) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| FP7 | 10 (45) | 7 (44) | 13 (59) |
| M4 | 5 (23) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Prior CE/IOL, | 9 (41) | 14 (52) | 10 (45) |
| Concurrent CE/IOLb | 13 (59) | 4 (25) | 3 (14) |
| Preop IOP (mmHg) | |||
| Mean (SD) | 26.73 (11.84) | 32.53 (10.91) | 29.25 (10.07) |
| Range | 13–50 | 13–50 | 17–56 |
| Number of medications | |||
| Mean (SD) | 2.82 (0.66) | 3.25 (0.77) | 2.86 (1.12) |
| Range | 2–4 | 2–4 | 0–5 |
| BCVA (logMAR) | |||
| Mean (SD)c | −1.17 (0.78) | −0.63 (0.67) | −0.76 (0.82) |
| Range | (−3)–(−0.18) | (−2.3)–0 | (−2.6)–0 |
| Follow-up (days) | |||
| Mean (SD) | 434 (291) | 576 (254) | 511 (298) |
| Range | 30–720 | 181–978 | 30–1023 |
BCVA best-corrected visual acuity, CE/IOL cataract extraction with intraocular lens placement, IOP intraocular pressure, POAG primary open angle glaucoma, SD standard deviation
aMean age significantly different among groups (P < 0.001, Kruskal–Wallis test)
bConcurrent CE/IOL significantly different among the uveitic Retisert compared to uveitic and POAG valve groups (P = 0.036 and 0.0017, respectively, t test)
cMean logMar visual acuity of uveitic–Retisert group significantly less than uveitic group (P = 0.021, t test)
Fig. 1Kaplan–Meier cumulative probability curve of surgical success for the UG Retisert compared to the UG non-Retisert and POAG groups. POAG primary open angle glaucoma
Causes of Ahmed valve failure
| Glaucoma category | Uveitic–Retisert valve ( | Uveitic valve ( | POAG valve ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inadequate control of IOP | 3 (60) | 4 (80) | 11 (100) |
| Loss of light perception | 1 (20)a | ||
| Hypotony | 1 (20) | ||
| Additional IOP-lowering procedure | 1 (20) |
Values are presented as n (%)
IOP intraocular pressure, POAG primary open angle glaucoma
aPatient also had hypotony
Fig. 2Change in IOP from preoperative (month 0) to postoperative month 24. Each error bar is constructed using 1 standard error from the mean. IOP intraocular pressure, POAG primary open angle glaucoma
Fig. 3Change in number of glaucoma medications (GTTS) from preoperative (month 0) to postoperative month 24. Each error bar is constructed using 1 standard error from the mean. POAG primary open angle glaucoma