Surgical treatment of Ahmed glaucoma valve’s tube protrusion relapse. Clinical observations

Anna V. Starostina , Konstantin S. Burlakov

Ophthalmology Reports ›› 2023, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (4) : 91 -97.

PDF
Ophthalmology Reports ›› 2023, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (4) : 91 -97. DOI: 10.17816/OV567990
Case reports
research-article

Surgical treatment of Ahmed glaucoma valve’s tube protrusion relapse. Clinical observations

Author information +
History +
PDF

Abstract

In the practice of an ophthalmic surgeon, patients with a large number of concomitant conditions after repeated surgical interventions are seen with increasingly frequency. One of the grave complications in such patients is secondary glaucoma with a refractory type of course. After successful compensation of intraocular pressure in such patients, the risk of complications increases many times, for example, protrusion of the Ahmed valve drainage tube, which becomes the entrance gate for infection, which can lead to endophthalmitis. This article presents clinical cases of surgical treatment of recurrent protrusion of the Ahmed valve drainage tube.

Keywords

secondary glaucoma / Ahmed valve / valve drainage tube protrusion

Cite this article

Download citation ▾
Anna V. Starostina, Konstantin S. Burlakov. Surgical treatment of Ahmed glaucoma valve’s tube protrusion relapse. Clinical observations. Ophthalmology Reports, 2023, 16(4): 91-97 DOI:10.17816/OV567990

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户 忘记密码

References

[1]

Kapelushnik N, Singer R, Barkana Y, et al. Surgical outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation without plate sutures: a 10-year retrospective study. J Glaucoma. 2021;30(6):502–507. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001813

[2]

Kapelushnik N., Singer R., Barkana Y., et al. Surgical outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation without plate sutures: a 10-year retrospective study // J Glaucoma. 2021. Vol. 30, No. 6. P. 502–507. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001813

[3]

Arikan G, Gunenc U. Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation to reduce intraocular pressure: Updated perspectives. Clin Ophthalmol. 2023;17:1833–1845. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S342721

[4]

Arikan G., Gunenc U. Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation to reduce intraocular pressure: Updated perspectives // Clin Ophthalmol. 2023. Vol. 17. P. 1833–1845. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S342721

[5]

Patel S, Pasquale LR. Glaucoma drainage devices: a review of the past, present, and future. Semin Ophthalmol. 2010;25(5–6): 265–270. DOI: 10.3109/08820538.2010.518840

[6]

Patel S., Pasquale L.R. Glaucoma drainage devices: a review of the past, present, and future // Semin Ophthalmol. 2010. Vol. 25, No. 5–6. P. 265–270. DOI: 10.3109/08820538.2010.518840

[7]

Yazdani S, Mahboobipour H, Pakravan M, et al. Adjunctive Mitomycin C or amniotic membrane transplantation for Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation: a randomized clinical trial. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(5):415–421. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000256

[8]

Yazdani S., Mahboobipour H., Pakravan M., et al. Adjunctive Mitomycin C or amniotic membrane transplantation for Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation: a randomized clinical trial // J Glaucoma. 2016. Vol. 25, No. 5. P. 415–421. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000256

[9]

Bains U, Hoguet A. Aqueous drainage device erosion: a review of rates, risks, prevention, and repair. Semin Ophthalmol. 2018;33(S1):1–10. DOI: 10.1080/08820538.2017.1353805

[10]

Bains U., Hoguet A. Aqueous drainage device erosion: a review of rates, risks, prevention, and repair // Semin Ophthalmol. 2018. Vol. 33, No. S1. P. 1–10. DOI: 10.1080/08820538.2017.1353805

[11]

Chaku M, Netland PA, Ishida K, Rhee DJ. Risk factors for tube exposure as a late complication of glaucoma drainage implant surgery. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:547–553. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S104029

[12]

Chaku M., Netland P.A., Ishida K., Rhee D.J. Risk factors for tube exposure as a late complication of glaucoma drainage implant surgery // Clin Ophthalmol. 2016. Vol. 10. P. 547–553. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S104029

[13]

Coleman AL, Hill R, Wilson MR, et al. Initial clinical experience with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Am J Ophthalmol. 1995;120(1):23–31. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9394(14)73755-9

[14]

Coleman A.L., Hill R., Wilson M.R., et al. Initial clinical experience with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant // Am J Ophthalmol. 1995. Vol. 120, No. 1. P. 23–31. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9394(14)73755-9

[15]

Topouzis F, Coleman AL, Choplin N, et al. Follow-up of the original cohort with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128(2):198–204. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9394(99)00080-X

[16]

Topouzis F., Coleman A.L., Choplin N., et al. Follow-up of the original cohort with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant // Am J Ophthalmol. 1999. Vol. 128, No. 2. P. 198–204. DOI: 10.1016/S0002–9394(99)00080-X

[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(1):65–70. DOI: 10.1038/sj.eye.6702125

[18]

Yalvac I.S., Eksioglu U., Satana B., Duman S. Long-term results of Ahmed glaucoma valve and Molteno implant in neovascular glaucoma // Eye. 2007. Vol. 21, No. 1. P. 65–70. DOI: 10.1038/sj.eye.6702125

[19]

Pakravan M, Hatami M, Esfandiari H, et al. Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation: graft-free short tunnel small flap versus scleral patch graft after 1-year follow-up: a randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2018;1(3):206–212. DOI: 10.1016/j.ogla.2018.10.008

[20]

Pakravan M., Hatami M., Esfandiari H., et al. Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation: graft-free short tunnel small flap versus scleral patch graft after 1-year follow-up: a randomized clinical trial // Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2018. Vol. 1, No. 3. P. 206–212. DOI: 10.1016/j.ogla.2018.10.008

[21]

Smith MF, Doyle JW, Ticrney JW Jr. A comparison of glaucoma drainage implant tube coverage. J Glaucoma. 2002;11(2):143–147. DOI: 10.1097/00061198-200204000-00010

[22]

Smith M.F., Doyle J.W., Ticrney J.W. Jr. A comparison of glaucoma drainage implant tube coverage // J Glaucoma. 2002. Vol. 11, No. 2. P. 143–147. DOI: 10.1097/00061198-200204000-00010

[23]

Wigton E, Swanner C, Joiner J, et al. Outcomes of shunt tube coverage with glycerol preserved cornea versus pericardium. J Glaucoma. 2014;23(4):258–261. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31826a96e8

[24]

Wigton E., Swanner C., Joiner J., et al. Outcomes of shunt tube coverage with glycerol preserved cornea versus pericardium // J Glaucoma. 2014. Vol. 23, No. 4. P. 258–261. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31826a96e8

[25]

Panda S, Khurana M, Vijaya L, et al. Comparison of conjunctiva-related complications between scleral and corneal patch grafts in Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2023;71(3):881–887. DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1846_22

[26]

Panda S., Khurana M., Vijaya L., et al. Comparison of conjunctiva-related complications between scleral and corneal patch grafts in Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation // Indian J Ophthalmol. 2023. Vol. 71, No. 3. P. 881–887. DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1846_22

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Eco-Vector

AI Summary AI Mindmap
PDF

136

Accesses

0

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

AI思维导图

/