Glaucoma drainage implants: a critical comparison of types

PURPOSE OF REVIEWThe purpose of this review is to critically compare the various glaucoma drainage implants in popular use. RECENT FINDINGSGlaucoma drainage implants are being increasingly utilized in the surgical management of glaucoma. Comparisons between the various drainage implants are difficul...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Current opinion in ophthalmology 2006-04, Vol.17 (2), p.181-189
Hauptverfasser: Schwartz, Kenneth S, Lee, Richard K, Gedde, Steven J
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 189
container_issue 2
container_start_page 181
container_title Current opinion in ophthalmology
container_volume 17
creator Schwartz, Kenneth S
Lee, Richard K
Gedde, Steven J
description PURPOSE OF REVIEWThe purpose of this review is to critically compare the various glaucoma drainage implants in popular use. RECENT FINDINGSGlaucoma drainage implants are being increasingly utilized in the surgical management of glaucoma. Comparisons between the various drainage implants are difficult because most clinical data are derived from retrospective studies with different study populations, follow-up periods, and criteria defining success. The type of glaucoma under treatment is a major factor influencing surgical outcomes. The resistance to aqueous flow through glaucoma drainage implants occurs across the fibrous capsule around the end plate, and the major determinants of the final intraocular pressure are capsular thickness and filtration surface area. The use of antifibrotic agents as adjuncts to drainage implant surgery has not proven effective in modulating capsular thickness. Valved implants appear to reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk of hypotony. Bleb encapsulation is more frequently seen with the Ahmed valve implant than other drainage implants. Diplopia was a common complication with the Baerveldt glaucoma implant after its introduction, but design modifications have markedly reduced the incidence of this complication. SUMMARYThere are several glaucoma drainage implants that are currently available, and all have been shown to be safe and effective in reducing intraocular pressure. Greater pressure reduction may be achieved with implants with larger end plates, and valved implants appear to reduce the risk of postoperative hypotony.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/01.icu.0000193080.55240.7e
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67772791</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>67772791</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4281-9a89dda11a6d21a8ace278e6f4f7c5e1fd572c8d893fdab3298d5a26809ab77b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkE1PwzAMhiMEYuPjL6CKA7cWO22adDeEYCAhcYFz5CUpFNq1JK0m_j0ZmzRf7MPz2tbD2DVChlDJW8CsMVMGsbDKQUEmBC8gk-6IzVHkmErgeBxnKCBVMlczdhbCV-QLUOKUzbCMCS6KOVssW5pM31FiPTVr-nBJ0w0trcewSCgxvhkbQ20SkYF8E_p10tfJ-Du4cMFOamqDu9z3c_b--PB2_5S-vC6f7-9eUlNwhWlFqrKWEKm0HEmRcVwqV9ZFLY1wWFshuVFWVXltaZXzSllBvFRQ0UrKVX7ObnZ7B9__TC6MumuCcW180vVT0KWUkssKI7jYgcb3IXhX68E3HflfjaC35jSgjub0wZz-N6eli-Gr_ZVp1Tl7iO5VRaDYAZu-HZ0P3-20cV5_OmrHz-1KIWQuUg5QRs0A6fYI5n_pV3qe</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>67772791</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Glaucoma drainage implants: a critical comparison of types</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Schwartz, Kenneth S ; Lee, Richard K ; Gedde, Steven J</creator><creatorcontrib>Schwartz, Kenneth S ; Lee, Richard K ; Gedde, Steven J</creatorcontrib><description>PURPOSE OF REVIEWThe purpose of this review is to critically compare the various glaucoma drainage implants in popular use. RECENT FINDINGSGlaucoma drainage implants are being increasingly utilized in the surgical management of glaucoma. Comparisons between the various drainage implants are difficult because most clinical data are derived from retrospective studies with different study populations, follow-up periods, and criteria defining success. The type of glaucoma under treatment is a major factor influencing surgical outcomes. The resistance to aqueous flow through glaucoma drainage implants occurs across the fibrous capsule around the end plate, and the major determinants of the final intraocular pressure are capsular thickness and filtration surface area. The use of antifibrotic agents as adjuncts to drainage implant surgery has not proven effective in modulating capsular thickness. Valved implants appear to reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk of hypotony. Bleb encapsulation is more frequently seen with the Ahmed valve implant than other drainage implants. Diplopia was a common complication with the Baerveldt glaucoma implant after its introduction, but design modifications have markedly reduced the incidence of this complication. SUMMARYThere are several glaucoma drainage implants that are currently available, and all have been shown to be safe and effective in reducing intraocular pressure. Greater pressure reduction may be achieved with implants with larger end plates, and valved implants appear to reduce the risk of postoperative hypotony.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1040-8738</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1531-7021</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/01.icu.0000193080.55240.7e</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16552254</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc</publisher><subject>Aqueous Humor - secretion ; Glaucoma - physiopathology ; Glaucoma - surgery ; Glaucoma Drainage Implants - classification ; Humans ; Intraocular Pressure - physiology ; Prosthesis Implantation</subject><ispartof>Current opinion in ophthalmology, 2006-04, Vol.17 (2), p.181-189</ispartof><rights>2006 Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc.</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4281-9a89dda11a6d21a8ace278e6f4f7c5e1fd572c8d893fdab3298d5a26809ab77b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4281-9a89dda11a6d21a8ace278e6f4f7c5e1fd572c8d893fdab3298d5a26809ab77b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16552254$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schwartz, Kenneth S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Richard K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gedde, Steven J</creatorcontrib><title>Glaucoma drainage implants: a critical comparison of types</title><title>Current opinion in ophthalmology</title><addtitle>Curr Opin Ophthalmol</addtitle><description>PURPOSE OF REVIEWThe purpose of this review is to critically compare the various glaucoma drainage implants in popular use. RECENT FINDINGSGlaucoma drainage implants are being increasingly utilized in the surgical management of glaucoma. Comparisons between the various drainage implants are difficult because most clinical data are derived from retrospective studies with different study populations, follow-up periods, and criteria defining success. The type of glaucoma under treatment is a major factor influencing surgical outcomes. The resistance to aqueous flow through glaucoma drainage implants occurs across the fibrous capsule around the end plate, and the major determinants of the final intraocular pressure are capsular thickness and filtration surface area. The use of antifibrotic agents as adjuncts to drainage implant surgery has not proven effective in modulating capsular thickness. Valved implants appear to reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk of hypotony. Bleb encapsulation is more frequently seen with the Ahmed valve implant than other drainage implants. Diplopia was a common complication with the Baerveldt glaucoma implant after its introduction, but design modifications have markedly reduced the incidence of this complication. SUMMARYThere are several glaucoma drainage implants that are currently available, and all have been shown to be safe and effective in reducing intraocular pressure. Greater pressure reduction may be achieved with implants with larger end plates, and valved implants appear to reduce the risk of postoperative hypotony.</description><subject>Aqueous Humor - secretion</subject><subject>Glaucoma - physiopathology</subject><subject>Glaucoma - surgery</subject><subject>Glaucoma Drainage Implants - classification</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intraocular Pressure - physiology</subject><subject>Prosthesis Implantation</subject><issn>1040-8738</issn><issn>1531-7021</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkE1PwzAMhiMEYuPjL6CKA7cWO22adDeEYCAhcYFz5CUpFNq1JK0m_j0ZmzRf7MPz2tbD2DVChlDJW8CsMVMGsbDKQUEmBC8gk-6IzVHkmErgeBxnKCBVMlczdhbCV-QLUOKUzbCMCS6KOVssW5pM31FiPTVr-nBJ0w0trcewSCgxvhkbQ20SkYF8E_p10tfJ-Du4cMFOamqDu9z3c_b--PB2_5S-vC6f7-9eUlNwhWlFqrKWEKm0HEmRcVwqV9ZFLY1wWFshuVFWVXltaZXzSllBvFRQ0UrKVX7ObnZ7B9__TC6MumuCcW180vVT0KWUkssKI7jYgcb3IXhX68E3HflfjaC35jSgjub0wZz-N6eli-Gr_ZVp1Tl7iO5VRaDYAZu-HZ0P3-20cV5_OmrHz-1KIWQuUg5QRs0A6fYI5n_pV3qe</recordid><startdate>200604</startdate><enddate>200604</enddate><creator>Schwartz, Kenneth S</creator><creator>Lee, Richard K</creator><creator>Gedde, Steven J</creator><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200604</creationdate><title>Glaucoma drainage implants: a critical comparison of types</title><author>Schwartz, Kenneth S ; Lee, Richard K ; Gedde, Steven J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4281-9a89dda11a6d21a8ace278e6f4f7c5e1fd572c8d893fdab3298d5a26809ab77b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Aqueous Humor - secretion</topic><topic>Glaucoma - physiopathology</topic><topic>Glaucoma - surgery</topic><topic>Glaucoma Drainage Implants - classification</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intraocular Pressure - physiology</topic><topic>Prosthesis Implantation</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schwartz, Kenneth S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Richard K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gedde, Steven J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Current opinion in ophthalmology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schwartz, Kenneth S</au><au>Lee, Richard K</au><au>Gedde, Steven J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Glaucoma drainage implants: a critical comparison of types</atitle><jtitle>Current opinion in ophthalmology</jtitle><addtitle>Curr Opin Ophthalmol</addtitle><date>2006-04</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>181</spage><epage>189</epage><pages>181-189</pages><issn>1040-8738</issn><eissn>1531-7021</eissn><abstract>PURPOSE OF REVIEWThe purpose of this review is to critically compare the various glaucoma drainage implants in popular use. RECENT FINDINGSGlaucoma drainage implants are being increasingly utilized in the surgical management of glaucoma. Comparisons between the various drainage implants are difficult because most clinical data are derived from retrospective studies with different study populations, follow-up periods, and criteria defining success. The type of glaucoma under treatment is a major factor influencing surgical outcomes. The resistance to aqueous flow through glaucoma drainage implants occurs across the fibrous capsule around the end plate, and the major determinants of the final intraocular pressure are capsular thickness and filtration surface area. The use of antifibrotic agents as adjuncts to drainage implant surgery has not proven effective in modulating capsular thickness. Valved implants appear to reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk of hypotony. Bleb encapsulation is more frequently seen with the Ahmed valve implant than other drainage implants. Diplopia was a common complication with the Baerveldt glaucoma implant after its introduction, but design modifications have markedly reduced the incidence of this complication. SUMMARYThere are several glaucoma drainage implants that are currently available, and all have been shown to be safe and effective in reducing intraocular pressure. Greater pressure reduction may be achieved with implants with larger end plates, and valved implants appear to reduce the risk of postoperative hypotony.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc</pub><pmid>16552254</pmid><doi>10.1097/01.icu.0000193080.55240.7e</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1040-8738
ispartof Current opinion in ophthalmology, 2006-04, Vol.17 (2), p.181-189
issn 1040-8738
1531-7021
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67772791
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Aqueous Humor - secretion
Glaucoma - physiopathology
Glaucoma - surgery
Glaucoma Drainage Implants - classification
Humans
Intraocular Pressure - physiology
Prosthesis Implantation
title Glaucoma drainage implants: a critical comparison of types
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-20T07%3A14%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Glaucoma%20drainage%20implants:%20a%20critical%20comparison%20of%20types&rft.jtitle=Current%20opinion%20in%20ophthalmology&rft.au=Schwartz,%20Kenneth%20S&rft.date=2006-04&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=181&rft.epage=189&rft.pages=181-189&rft.issn=1040-8738&rft.eissn=1531-7021&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/01.icu.0000193080.55240.7e&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E67772791%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=67772791&rft_id=info:pmid/16552254&rfr_iscdi=true