Surgical outcomes of the baerveldt glaucoma implant: Differences between surgical techniques in the rotterdam eye hospital

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 363-368

  Poels, Mariëlle M F ^a   Niessen, Antoinette G J E ^a   De Waard, Peter W T ^a   Lemij, Hans G ^a  

^a ROTTERDAM EYE HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Glaucoma drainage implant; Intraocular pressure; Surgery

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BAERVELDT GLAUCOMA IMPLANT; ENDOPHTHALMITIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; OPERATION DURATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PEROPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETINA DETACHMENT; RETINA MACULA CYSTOID EDEMA; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TERTIARY HEALTH CARE; TRABECULECTOMY;

FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; GLAUCOMA DRAINAGE IMPLANTS; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OPHTHALMOLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84879174586     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: 1536481X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3182447b7c     Document Type: Article

References (16)

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.
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.
3. Lim KS, Allan BD, Lloyd AW, et al. Glaucoma drainage devices; past, present, and future. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82: 1083-1089.
4. Hong CH, Arosemena A, Zurakowski D, et al. Glaucoma drainage devices: a systematic literature review and current controversies. Surv Ophthalmol. 2005;50:48-60.
5. Schwartz KS, Lee RK, Gedde SJ. Glaucoma drainage implants: a critical comparison of types. Curr Opin Ophthal-mol. 2006;17:181-189.
6. Siegner SW, Netland PA, Urban RC Jr., et al. Clinical experience with the Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant. Ophthalmology. 1995;102:1298-1307.
7. Krishna R, Godfrey DG, Budenz DL, et al. Intermediate-term outcomes of 350-mm(2) Baerveldt glaucoma implants. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:621-626.
8. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, et al. Three-year follow-up of the tube versus trabeculectomy study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148:670-684.
9. Budenz DL, Barton K, Feuer WJ, et al. Treatment outcomes in the Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison study after 1 year of follow-up. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:435-442.
10. Kahook MY, Noecker RJ, Pantcheva MB, et al. Location of glaucoma drainage devices relative to the optic nerve. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:1010-1013.
11. van Overdam KA, de Faber JT, Lemij HG, et al. Baerveldt glaucoma implant in paediatric patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:328-332.
12. Van Aken E, Lemij H, Vander Haeghen Y, et al. Baerveldt glaucoma implants in the management of refractory glaucoma after vitreous surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. 2010;88: 75-79.
13. Patel S, Pasquale LR. Glaucoma drainage devices: a review of the past, present, and future. Semin Ophthalmol. 2010;25: 265-270.
14. 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.
15. Barton K, Gedde SJ, Budenz DL, et al. Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study G. The Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison study methodology, baseline patient characteristics, and intra-operative complications. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:443-452.
16. Netland PA, Ishida K, Boyle JW. The Ahmed Glaucoma Valve in patients with and without neovascular glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2010;19:581-586.