Evidenced-based comparison of aqueous shunts

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 87-95

  Gedde, Steven J ^a   Panarelli, Joseph F ^a   Banitt, Michael R ^a   Lee, Richard K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Aqueous Shunt; Evidence Based; Glaucoma; Randomized Clinical Trials; Retrospective Case Series

Indexed keywords

BIOCOMPATIBILITY; ENCAPSULATION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GLAUCOMA; GLAUCOMA DRAINAGE IMPLANT; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; INTRAOCULAR HYPOTENSION; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GLAUCOMA; GLAUCOMA DRAINAGE IMPLANTS; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION;

EID: 84876291236     PISSN: 10408738     EISSN: 15317021     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e32835cf0f5     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Ramulu PY, Corcoran KJ, Corcoran SL, Robin AL. Utilization of various glaucoma surgeries and procedures in Medicare beneficiaries from 1995 to 2004. Ophthalmology 2007; 114:2265-2270.
2. 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.
3. Desai MA, Gedde SJ, Feuer WJ, et al. Practice preferences for glaucoma surgery: a survey of the American Glaucoma Society in 2008. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2011; 42:202-208. This survey of the American Glaucoma Society membership demonstrates a shift in surgical practice patterns with an increasing use of aqueous shunts.
4. Minckler DS, Shammas A, Wilcox M, Ogden TE. Experimental studies of aqueous filtration using the Molteno implant. Tran Am Ophthalmol Soc 1987; 85:368-392.
5. Wilcox MJ, Mickler DS, Ogden TE. Pathophysiology of artificial aqueous drainage in primate eyes with Molteno implants. J Glaucoma 1994; 3:140-151.
6. Ayyala RS, Harman LE, Michelini-Norris M, et al. Comparison of different biomaterials for glaucoma drainage devices. Arch Ophthalmol 1999; 117:233-236.
7. Ayyala RS, Harman LE, Flores A, et al. Comparison of different biomaterials for glaucoma drainage devices. Part 2. Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118:1081-1084.
8. Choritz L, Koynov K, Renieri G, et al. Surface topographies of glaucoma drainage devices and their influence on human Tenon fibroblast adhesion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51:4047-4053.
9. 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.
10. Aung T, Seah SKL. Glaucoma drainage implants in Asian eyes. Ophthalmology 1998; 105:2117-2122.
11. Ayyala RS, Zurakowski D, Monshizadeh R, et al. Comparison of double-plate Molteno and Ahmed glaucoma valve in patients with advanced uncontrolled glaucoma. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers 2002; 33:94-101.
12. Taglia DP, Perkins TW, Gangnon R, et al. Comparison of the Ahmed glaucoma valve, the Krupin eye valve with disk, and the double-plate Molteno implant. J Glaucoma 2002; 11:347-353.
13. Syed HM, Law SK, Nam SH, et al. Baerveldt-350 versus Ahmed valve for refractory glaucoma. A case-controlled comparison. J Glaucoma 2004; 13:38-45.
14. Wang J-C, See JLS, Chew PTK. Experience with the use of Baerveldt and Ahmed glaucoma drainage implants in an Asian population. Ophthalmology 2004; 111:1383-1388.
15. 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.
16. Tsai JC, Johnson CC, Kammer JA, Dietrich MS. The Ahmed shunt versus the Baerveldt shunt for refractory glaucoma. II. Longer-term outcomes from a single surgeon. Ophthalmology 2006; 113:913-917.
17. Yalvac IS, Eksioglu U, Satana B, Duman S. Long-term results of Ahmed glaucoma valve and Molteno implant in neovascular glaucoma. Eye 2007; 21:65-70.
18. Goulet RJ, Phan A-DT, Cantor LB, WuDunn D. Efficacy of the Ahmed S2 glaucoma valve compared with the Baerveldt 250-mm2 glaucoma implant. Ophthalmology 2008; 115:1141-1147.
19. Nassiri N, Kamali G, Rahnavardi M, et al. Ahmed glaucoma valve and singleplate Molteno implants in treatment of refractory glaucoma: a comparative study. Am J Ophthalmol 2010; 149:893-902.
20. .Barton K, Gedde SJ, Budenz DL, et al. The Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study. Methodology, baseline patient characteristics, and intraoperative complications. Ophthalmology 2011; 118:435-442. The ABC Study is the first, multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing the Ahmed and Baerveldt implants, the two most popular aqueous shunts. This article describes the study design, baseline characteristics of enrolled patients, and intraoperative complications.
21. Budenz DL, Barton K, Feuer WJ, et al. Treatment outcomes in the Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study after 1 year of follow-up. Ophthalmology 2011; 118:443-452. This article reports the1-year treatment outcomes in the ABC Study. The Baerveldt implant was more effective in reducing IOP, but the Ahmed implant had a better safety profile with lower rates of early and serious postoperative complications.
22. Christakis PG, Tsai JC, Zurakowski D, et al. The Ahmed Versus Baerveldt Study. Design, baseline characteristics, and intraoperative complications. Ophthalmology 2011; 118:2172-2179. The AVB Study is a large, multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of the Ahmed and Baerveldt implants. This article provides the study methodology, baseline patient characteristics, and intraoperative complications.
23. Christakis PG, Kalenak JW, Zurakowski D, et al. The Ahmed Versus Baerveldt Study. One-year treatment outcomes. Ophthalmology 2011; 118:2180-2189. The1-year treatment outcomes in the AVB Study are presented in this article. The Baerveldt implant had a higher rate of surgical success with lower IOP and less use of adjunctive glaucoma medications, but the Ahmed implant required fewer postoperative interventions.
24. Sidoti PA, Dunphy TR, Baerveldt G, et al. Experience with the Baerveldt glaucoma implant in treating neovascular glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1995; 102:1107-1118.
25. Siegner SW,Netland PA, UrbanRC, et al. Clinical experience with the Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant. Ophthalmology 1995; 102:1298-1307.
26. Mills RP, Reynolds A, Emond MJ, et al. Long-term survival of Molteno glaucoma drainage devices. Ophthalmology 1996; 103:299-305.
27. Broadway DC, Iester M, Schulzer M, Douglas GR. Survival analysis for success of Molteno tube implants. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85:689-695.
28. Roy S, Ravinet E, Mermoud A. Baerveldt implant in refractory glaucoma: longterm results and factors influencing outcome. Int Ophthalmol 2002; 24:93-100.
29. Seah SKL, Gazzard G, Aung T. Intermediate-term outcome of Baerveldt glaucoma implants in Asian eyes. Ophthalmology 2003; 110:888-894.
30. Law SK, Nguyen A, Coleman AL, Caprioli J. Comparison of safety and efficacy between silicone and polypropylene Ahmed glaucoma valves in refractory glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2005; 112:1514-1520.
31. Hinkle DM, Zurakowski D, Ayyala RS. A comparison of the polypropylene plate Ahmed glaucoma valve to the silicone plate Ahmed glaucoma flexible valve. Eur J Ophthalmol 2007; 17:696-701.
32. Heuer DK, Lloyd MA, Abrams DA, et al. Which is betterOne or twoA randomized clinical trial of single-plate versus double-plate Molteno implantation for glaucomas in aphakia and pseudophakia. Ophthalmology 1992; 99:1512-1519.
33. Lloyd MA, Baerveldt G, Fellenbaum PS, et al. Intermediate-term results of a randomized clinical trial of the 350-versus the 500-mm2 Baerveldt implant. Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1456-1464.
34. Britt MT, LaBree LD, Lloyd MA, et al. Randomized clinical trial of the 350-mm2 versus the 500-mm2 Baerveldt implant: longer term results. Ophthalmology 1999; 106:2312-2318.
35. Ishida K, Netland PA, Costa VP, et al. Comparison of polypropylene and silicone Ahmed glaucoma valve. Ophthalmology 2006; 113:1320-1326.
36. Wilcox MJ, Minckler DS. Hypothesis for improving accessory filtration by using geometry. J Glaucoma 1994; 3:244-247.