Outcomes of fornix-based versus limbus-based conjunctival incisions for glaucoma drainage device implant

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 21, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 523-529

  Suhr, Abraham W ^a   Lim, Michele C ^a   Brandt, James D ^a   Izquierdo, Juan Carlos ^a   Willits, Neil ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Baerveldt glaucoma implant; conjunctival incision; glaucoma

Indexed keywords

CHOLESTEROL;

ADULT; AGED; ANTERIOR EYE CHAMBER DISEASE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLOSED ANGLE GLAUCOMA; CONJUNCTIVAL INCISION; CORNEA EDEMA; CORNEA LIMBUS; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DIABETES MELLITUS; ENDOPHTHALMITIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GLAUCOMA; GLAUCOMA DRAINAGE IMPLANT; GLAUCOMA SURGERY; HUMAN; HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA; HYPERTENSION; INCISION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; IRITIS; LASER COAGULATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL HISTORY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIMARY GLAUCOMA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REOPERATION; RETINA VEIN OCCLUSION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; SECONDARY GLAUCOMA; SURGICAL APPROACH; TRABECULECTOMY; TRABECULOPLASTY; TREATMENT FAILURE; UVEITIS; VISUAL ACUITY;

AGED; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS; CONJUNCTIVA; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; GLAUCOMA DRAINAGE IMPLANTS; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OPHTHALMOLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SURGICAL FLAPS; TONOMETRY, OCULAR; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 84867233197     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: 1536481X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e318227a565     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Chen PP, Yamamoto T, Sawada A, et al. Use of antifibrosis agents and glaucoma drainage devices in the American and Japanese Glaucoma Societies. J Glaucoma. 1997;6:192-196. (Pubitemid 27326200)
2. Joshi AB, Parrish RK 2nd, Feuer WF. 2002 survey of the American Glaucoma Society: practice preferences for glaucoma surgery and antifibrotic use. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:172-174. (Pubitemid 40389189)
3. Reynolds A, Skuta G. Focal Points: Current trends and challenges in glaucoma care. San Francisco: American Academy of Ophthalmology. 2008;26:1-13.
4. Tsai JC, Johnson CC, Dietrich MS. The Ahmed shunt versus the Baerveldt shunt for refractory glaucoma: a single-surgeon comparison of outcome. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1814-1821. (Pubitemid 37025443)
5. Tsai JC, Johnson CC, Kammer JA, et al. The Ahmed shunt versus the Baerveldt shunt for refractory glaucoma II: longer-term outcomes from a single surgeon. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:913-917. (Pubitemid 43795241)
6. Ayyala RS, Zurakowski D, Monshizadeh R, et al. Comparisonof double-plate Molteno and Ahmed glaucoma valve in patients with advanced uncontrolled glaucoma. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 2002;33:94-101.
7. Smith MF, Doyle JW, Sherwood MB. Comparison of the Baerveldt glaucoma implant with the double-plate Molteno drainage implant. Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113:444-447.
8. Syed HM, Law SK, Nam SH, et al. Baerveldt-350 implant versus Ahmed valve for refractory glaucoma: a case-controlled comparison. J Glaucoma. 2004;13:38-45. (Pubitemid 38112352)
9. Wang JC, See JL, Chew PT. Experience with the use of Baerveldt and Ahmed glaucoma drainage implants in an Asian population. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:1383-1388. (Pubitemid 38844839)
10. Schwartz KS, Lee RK, Gedde SJ. Glaucoma drainage implants: a critical comparison of types. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006;17:181-189. (Pubitemid 43790815)
11. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, et al. Treatment outcomes in the tube versus trabeculectomy study after one year of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:9-22.
12. Gedde SJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, et al. Surgical complications in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study during the first year of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:23-31.
13. Jacob JT, Burgoyne CF, McKinnon SJ, et al. Biocompatibility response to modified Baerveldt glaucoma drains. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;43:99-107. (Pubitemid 28246961)
14. Molteno AC, Fucik M, Dempster AG, et al. Otago Glaucoma Surgery Outcome Study: factors controlling capsule fibrosis around Molteno implants with histopathological correlation. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:2198-2206. (Pubitemid 37337859)
15. Wilcox MJ, Barad JP, Wilcox CC, et al. Performance of a new, low-volume, high-surface area aqueous shunt in normal rabbit eyes. J Glaucoma. 2000;9:74-82. (Pubitemid 32440554)
16. Wilcox M, Kadri OA. Force and geometry determine structure and function of glaucoma filtration capsules. Ophthalmologica. 2007;221:238-243. (Pubitemid 46956801)
17. Kadri OA, Wilcox MJ. Surface tension controls capsule thickness and collagen orientation in glaucoma shunt devices. Biomed Sci Instrum. 2001;37:257-262. (Pubitemid 32381448)
18. Watson JC, Kadri OA, Wilcox MJ. Effects of mitomycin C on glaucoma filtration capsules. Biomed Sci Instrum. 2005;41:394-399.
19. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, et al. The tube versus trabeculectomy study: design and baseline characteristics of study patients. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140:275-287.
20. Wells AP, Cordeiro MF, Bunce C, et al. Cystic bleb formation and related complications in limbus- versus fornix-based conjunctival flaps in pediatric and young adult trabeculectomy with mitomycin C. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:2192-2197. (Pubitemid 37337858)
21. Jones E, Clarke J, Khaw PT. Recent advances in trabeculectomy technique. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2005;16:107-113. (Pubitemid 43790803)
22. Shuster JN, Krupin T, Kolker AE, et al. Limbus- v fornixbased conjunctival flap in trabeculectomy. A long-term randomized study. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;102:361-362. (Pubitemid 14197281)
23. Traverso CE, Tomey KF, Antonios S. Limbal- vs fornix-based conjunctival trabeculectomy flaps. Am J Ophthalmol. 1987;104: 28-32. (Pubitemid 17088761)
24. Brincker P, Kessing SV. Limbus-based versus fornix-based conjunctival flap in glaucoma filtering surgery. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1992;70:641-644.
25. Khan AM, Jilani FA. Comparative results of limbal based versus fornix based conjunctival flaps for trabeculectomy. Indian J Ophthalmol. 1992;40:41-43.
26. Lemon LC, Shin DH, Kim C, et al. Limbus-based vs fornix-based conjunctival flap in combined glaucoma and cataract surgery with adjunctive mitomycin C. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;125:340-345. (Pubitemid 28124362)
27. Tezel G, Kolker AE, Kass MA, et al. Comparative results of combined procedures for glaucoma and cataract: II. Limbusbased versus fornix-based conjunctival flaps. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1997;28:551-557.
28. Ashkenazi I, Melamed S, Avni I, et al. Risk factors associated with late infection of filtering blebs and endophthalmitis. Ophthalmic Surg. 1991;22:570-574.
29. Hattenhauer JM, Lipsich MP. Late endophthalmitis after filtering surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 1971;72:1097-1101.
30. Fanous MM, Cohn RA. Propionibacterium endophthalmitis following Molteno tube repositioning. J Glaucoma. 1997;6: 201-202. (Pubitemid 27503654)
31. Gedde SJ, Scott IU, Tabandeh H, et al. Late endophthalmitis associated with glaucoma drainage implants. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1323-1327. (Pubitemid 32568147)
32. Roy S, Ravinet E, Mermoud A. Baerveldt implant in refractory glaucoma: long-term results and factors influencing outcome. International Ophthalmology. 2002;24:93-100.
33. Lloyd MA, Baerveldt G, Heuer DK, et al. Initial clinical experience with the baerveldt implant in complicated glaucomas. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:640-650. (Pubitemid 24113223)