Jitendra Kumar Singh Parihar1, Vaibhav Kumar Jain2, Jaya Kaushik3, Avinash Mishra4. 1. a Department of Ophthalmology , Army Hospital Research and Referral , Delhi Cantt . India. 2. b Department of Ophthalmology , Uttar Pradesh Rural Institute of Medical Sciences & Research , Saifai , Etawah , India. 3. c Department of Ophthalmology , Advance Eye Centre, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research , Chandigarh , India. 4. d Department of Ophthalmology , Command Hospital (EC) , Kolkata , West Bengal , India.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the outcome of pars-plana-modified Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) versus limbal-based conventional AGV into the anterior chamber, in patients undergoing penetrating keratoplasty (PK) for glaucoma with coexisting corneal diseases. METHOD: In this prospective randomized clinical trial, 58 eyes of 58 patients with glaucoma and coexisting corneal disease were divided into two groups. Group 1 (29 eyes of 29 patients) included patients undergoing limbal-based conventional AGV into the anterior chamber (AC) along-with PK and group 2 (29 eyes of 29 patients) included those undergoingpars-plana-modified AGV along-with PK. Outcome measures included corneal graft clarity, intraocular pressure (IOP), number of antiglaucoma medications, and postoperative complications. Patients were followed up for a minimum period of 2 years. RESULTS:Out of 58 eyes (58 patients), 50 eyes (50 patients: 25 eyes of 25 patients each in group 1 and group 2) completed the study and were analyzed. Complete success rate for AGV (group 1: 76%; group 2: 72%; p = 0.842) and corneal graft clarity (group 1: 68%; group 2: 76%; p = 0.081) were comparable between the two groups at 2 years. Graft failure was more in conventional AGV (32%) as compared to pars plana-modified AGV (24%) but not statistically significant (p = 0.078) at 2 years. CONCLUSION: Though both procedures were comparable in various outcome measures, pars-plana-modified AGV is a viable option for patients undergoing PK, as it provides a relatively better corneal graft survival rate and lesser complications that were associated with conventional AGV.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the outcome of pars-plana-modified Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) versus limbal-based conventional AGV into the anterior chamber, in patients undergoing penetrating keratoplasty (PK) for glaucoma with coexisting corneal diseases. METHOD: In this prospective randomized clinical trial, 58 eyes of 58 patients with glaucoma and coexisting corneal disease were divided into two groups. Group 1 (29 eyes of 29 patients) included patients undergoing limbal-based conventional AGV into the anterior chamber (AC) along-with PK and group 2 (29 eyes of 29 patients) included those undergoing pars-plana-modified AGV along-with PK. Outcome measures included corneal graft clarity, intraocular pressure (IOP), number of antiglaucoma medications, and postoperative complications. Patients were followed up for a minimum period of 2 years. RESULTS: Out of 58 eyes (58 patients), 50 eyes (50 patients: 25 eyes of 25 patients each in group 1 and group 2) completed the study and were analyzed. Complete success rate for AGV (group 1: 76%; group 2: 72%; p = 0.842) and corneal graft clarity (group 1: 68%; group 2: 76%; p = 0.081) were comparable between the two groups at 2 years. Graft failure was more in conventional AGV (32%) as compared to pars plana-modified AGV (24%) but not statistically significant (p = 0.078) at 2 years. CONCLUSION: Though both procedures were comparable in various outcome measures, pars-plana-modified AGV is a viable option for patients undergoing PK, as it provides a relatively better corneal graft survival rate and lesser complications that were associated with conventional AGV.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV); glaucoma drainage device (GDD); glaucoma with coexisting corneal diseases; pars plana clip; pars plana-modified AGV; penetrating keratoplasty
Authors: Ana M Roldan; Nazlee Zebardast; Maxwell Pistilli; Naira Khachatryan; Abhishek Payal; Hosne Begum; Pichaporn Artornsombudh; Siddharth S Pujari; James T Rosenbaum; H Nida Sen; Eric B Suhler; Jennifer E Thorne; Nirali P Bhatt; C Stephen Foster; Douglas A Jabs; Grace A Levy-Clarke; Robert B Nussenblatt; Jeanine M Buchanich; John H Kempen Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-11-13 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Sandy Samuel; Enchi K Chang; Sanchay Gupta; Marika Chachanidze; Cameron E Neeson; John B Miller; Ta Chen Chang; David A Solá-Del Valle Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 1.974