“Anti-glaucoma implant A3”: surgical technique and the long term follow-up results

Maria K. Grineva , Sergey Yu. Astakhov

Ophthalmology Reports ›› 2019, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (2) : 19 -24.

PDF (2182KB)
Ophthalmology Reports ›› 2019, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (2) : 19 -24. DOI: 10.17816/OV2019219-24
Original study articles
research-article

“Anti-glaucoma implant A3”: surgical technique and the long term follow-up results

Author information +
History +
PDF (2182KB)

Abstract

The goal of our work was to study the safety profile and effectiveness of a domestically manufactured shunting device for the treatment of advanced stage primary open-angle glaucoma. This article describes the surgical technique of “Anti-Glaucoma Implant A3” implantation, as well as long term follow-up results obtained from 19 patients (20 eyes).

Materials and methods. The devices were implanted in 19 patients (20 eyes) with advanced stage primary open-angle glaucoma. The diagnosis was made based on collected medical history, results of objective and instrumental test findings. All patients included in the study underwent a standard ophthalmologic examination, including: automatic refractometry, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) assessment, automated static perimetry, biomicroscopy of the anterior segment, indirect ophthalmoscopy with an aspheric lens, gonioscopy. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) was used to assess retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness.

Conclusion. Intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering surgical procedures using an anti-glaucoma shunting device are non-inferior by their effectiveness to trabeculectomy, and have lower complication rate.

Keywords

glaucoma / drainage / ophthalmic surgery / intraocular pressure / surgical treatment / intraocular pressure lowering surgical procedures / shunting devices

Cite this article

Download citation ▾
Maria K. Grineva, Sergey Yu. Astakhov. “Anti-glaucoma implant A3”: surgical technique and the long term follow-up results. Ophthalmology Reports, 2019, 12(2): 19-24 DOI:10.17816/OV2019219-24

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户 忘记密码

References

[1]

Pillunat LE, Erb C, Junemann AG, Kimmich F. Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS): a review of surgical procedures using stents. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:1583-1600. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S 135316.

[2]

Bloom P, Au L. “Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS) Is a Poor Substitute for Trabeculectomy” – The Great Debate. Ophthalmol Ther. 2018;7(2):203-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-018-0135-9.

[3]

Jonescu-Cuypers C. Primary viscocanalostomy versus trabeculectomy in white patients with open-angle glaucoma: A randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(2):254-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00514-5.

[4]

Cillino S, Di Pace F, Casuccio A, Lodato G. Deep sclerectomy versus punch trabeculectomy: effect of low-dosage mitomycin C. Ophthalmologica. 2005;219(5):281-286. https://doi.org/10.1159/000086112.

[5]

Khan BU, Ahmed II. Non-penetrating surgery. In: Atlas of glaucoma. 2nd ed. Ed. by N.T. Choplin, D.C. Lundy. London: Informa; 2007. P. 279-297.

[6]

Mermoud A, Schnyder CC, Sickenberg M, et al. Comparison of deep sclerectomy with collagen implant and trabeculectomy in open-angle glaucoma. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;25(3):323-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(99)80079-0.

[7]

Lüke C, Dietlein TS, Jacobi PC, et al. A prospective randomized trial of viscocanalostomy versus trabeculectomy in open-angle glaucoma: A 1-year follow-up study. J Glaucoma. 2002;11(4):294-299. https://doi.org/10.1097/00061198-200208000-00004.

[8]

Yalvac IS, Sahin M, Eksioglu U, et al. Primary viscocanalostomy versus trabeculectomy for primary open-angle glaucoma: three-year prospective randomized clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30(10):2050-2057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.02.073.

[9]

Gao F, Liu X, Zhao Q, Pan Y. Comparison of the iCare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Exp Ther Med. 2017;13(5):1912-1916. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.4164.

[10]

Guler M, Bilak S, Bilgin B, et al. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements obtained by Icare PRO rebound tonometer, Tomey FT-1000 noncontact tonometer, and goldmann applanation tonometer in healthy subjects. J Glaucoma. 2015;24(8):613-618. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000132.

[11]

Pakrou N, Gray T, Mills R, et al. Clinical comparison of the Icare tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2008;17(1):43-47. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0b013e318133fb32.

[12]

Harada Y, Hirose N, Kubota T, Tawara A. The influence of central corneal thickness and corneal curvature radius on the intraocular pressure as measured by different tonometers: noncontact and goldmann applanation tonometers. J Glaucoma. 2008;17(8): 619-625. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181634f0f.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Grineva M.K., Astakhov S.Y.

AI Summary AI Mindmap
PDF (2182KB)

162

Accesses

0

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

AI思维导图

/