| Literature DB >> 30090175 |
Sarah M Jacobs1,2, Raghu C Mudumbai1, A J Amadi1,3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluates the radiographic appearance of lacrimal gland tissue after placement of a glaucoma drainage implant (GDI) to characterize the impact of the device on the gland's imaging patterns.Entities:
Keywords: Glaucoma Drainage Implants; Lacrimal Gland; Orbit
Year: 2018 PMID: 30090175 PMCID: PMC6058550 DOI: 10.4103/jovr.jovr_200_17
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ophthalmic Vis Res ISSN: 2008-322X
Figure 1Maxillofacial CT images of a 55-year-old patient with a history of BGI placement 5 years previously depicting lacrimal gland measurements including (a) coronal vertical length (thin double line) and width (thick single line), (b) axial length (thin double line) and width (thick single line), and (c) gland outline for volume calculation.
Figure 2Typical appearance of GDI and lacrimal gland on various imaging modalities. (a) Axial T2 MRI of the brain of a 45-year-old woman with left superotemporal AGV for chronic angle-closure glaucoma (40 months after GDI). The GDI appears as a dark curvilinear structure, with bright linear signals representing bleb fluid on the deep and superficial surfaces of the device plate. The lacrimal gland is flattened and posteriorized compared to the unoperated side. (b) Axial T1 fat-saturated sequence of a 56-year-old woman with a left BGI for uveitic glaucoma (15 months after GDI). A thin bright line of the bleb fluid is collected over the dark curvilinear device plate. There are also commonly seen intermediate density soft tissue changes surrounding the GDI surface, as well as flattening and posteriorization of the lacrimal gland. (c) Same patient in B, T2 FLAIR sequence.
Figure 3Coronal maxillofacial CT images of a 44-year-old man, shown side by side for comparison of the orbits before versus after GDI surgery. (a) Two years prior to GDI placement. (b) Same patient, 1 month after surgery, showing a localized fluid collection laterally and displacement of the lacrimal gland tissue.
Imaging findings after glaucoma drainage implant