Comparison of Silicone- and Porous-Plate Ahmed Glaucoma Valves

Overview

Journal Med Devices (Auckl)

Publisher Dove Medical Press

Date 2020 Aug 9

PMID 32765127

Citations 1

Authors

Tina M Roa

Peter A Netland

Vital P Costa

Steven R Sarkisian Jr

Lama A Al-Aswad

Marlene R Moster

Iqbal I K Ahmed

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Our aim was to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes after implantation of the silicone-plate (model FP7) and porous polyethylene-plate (model M4) Ahmed Glaucoma Valves.

Patients And Methods: This was a prospective, multicenter, comparative series. A total of 52 eyes (52 patients) were treated with either the silicone or porous plate Ahmed Glaucoma Valve implant. Hypertensive phase was defined as intraocular pressure >21 mmHg during the first 3 months postoperatively. Success was defined as 5 mmHg ≤intraocular pressure ≤21 mmHg (with or without additional glaucoma medications), without loss of light perception and without additional glaucoma procedures. Patients were monitored for 1 year after surgery.

Results: The pre-operative intraocular pressure was 29.9 ± 6.6 mmHg and 33.8 ± 10.5 in the silicone-plate and porous-plate groups, respectively (P = 0.118). At 12 months after surgery, the mean intraocular pressure was 13.6 ± 4.7 mmHg in the silicone-plate group and 17.9 ± 10.9 mmHg in the porous-plate group (P = 0.141). The mean number of glaucoma medications at 12 months was 1.64 ± 1.40 mmHg and 1.89 ± 1.54 mmHg in the silicone- and porous-plate groups, respectively (P = 0.605). Hypertensive phase was not significantly different in the two groups (50.0% of the silicone-plate and 57.7% of the porous-plate groups, P = 0.578). At 12 months after surgery, the percent success for the silicone-plate and porous-plate groups was 88.5% and 53.8%, respectively (P = 0.005). Complications were similar in the two groups.

Conclusion: The porous-plate Ahmed Glaucoma Valve showed similar average intraocular pressure reduction compared with the silicone-plate model. At 12 months after surgery, there was a significantly lower success rate in the porous-plate compared with the silicone-plate group.

Citing Articles

Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of a Novel Glaucoma Drainage Device in High-Risk Adult Glaucoma Patients: A One-Year Pilot Study.

Ahmed F, Normando E, Ahmed S, Virdee S, Al-Nahrawy A J Clin Med. 2024; 13(17).

PMID: 39274211 PMC: 11396561. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13174996.

References

Kim J, Allingham R, Hall J, Klitzman B, Stinnett S, Asrani S . Clinical experience with a novel glaucoma drainage implant. J Glaucoma. 2013; 23(2):e91-7. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3182955d73. View

Cvintal V, Moster M, Shyu A, McDermott K, Ekici F, Pro M . Initial Experience With the New Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Model M4: Short-term Results. J Glaucoma. 2015; 25(5):e475-80. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000324. View

Ayyala R, Flores A, Haller E, Margo C . Comparison of different biomaterials for glaucoma drainage devices: part 2. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000; 118(8):1081-4. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.118.8.1081. View

Hu W, Pro M, Fudemberg S, Moster M . Explantation of the novel Ahmed glaucoma valve M4 implant. J Glaucoma. 2014; 24(2):e1-4. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000192. View

Gil-Carrasco F, Jimenez-Roman J, Turati-Acosta M, Bello-Lopez Portillo H, Isida-Llerandi C . Comparative study of the safety and efficacy of the Ahmed glaucoma valve model M4 (high density porous polyethylene) and the model S2 (polypropylene) in patients with neovascular glaucoma. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2016; 91(9):409-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.oftal.2016.02.009. View

Mackenzie P, Schertzer R, Isbister C . Comparison of silicone and polypropylene Ahmed glaucoma valves: two-year follow-up. Can J Ophthalmol. 2007; 42(2):227-32. DOI: 10.3129/can j ophthalmol.i07-032. View

Arora K, Robin A, Corcoran K, Corcoran S, Ramulu P . Use of Various Glaucoma Surgeries and Procedures in Medicare Beneficiaries from 1994 to 2012. Ophthalmology. 2015; 122(8):1615-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.04.015. View

Molteno A, Fucik M, Dempster A, Bevin T . Otago Glaucoma Surgery Outcome Study: factors controlling capsule fibrosis around Molteno implants with histopathological correlation. Ophthalmology. 2003; 110(11):2198-206. DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00803-0. View

Ashburn F, Netland P . The Evolution of Glaucoma Drainage Implants. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2018; 13(4):498-500. PMC: 6210865. DOI: 10.4103/jovr.jovr_26_18. View

10.

DeCroos F, Kondo Y, Mordes D, Lee M, Ahmad S, Asrani S . In vitro fluid dynamics of the Ahmed glaucoma valve modified with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene. Curr Eye Res. 2011; 36(2):112-7. DOI: 10.3109/02713683.2010.512115. View

11.

Law S, Kornmann H, Giaconi J, Kwong A, Tran E, Caprioli J . Early Aqueous Suppressant Therapy on Hypertensive Phase Following Glaucoma Drainage Device Procedure: A Randomized Prospective Trial. J Glaucoma. 2014; 25(3):248-57. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000131. View

12.

Sluch I, Gudgel B, Dvorak J, Anne Ahluwalia M, Ding K, Vold S . Clinical Experience with the M4 Ahmed Glaucoma Drainage Implant. J Curr Glaucoma Pract. 2017; 11(3):92-96. PMC: 5684239. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10028-1231. View

13.

Ishida K, Netland P, Costa V, Shiroma L, Khan B, Ahmed I . Comparison of polypropylene and silicone Ahmed Glaucoma Valves. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113(8):1320-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.04.020. View

14.

DeCroos F, Ahmad S, Kondo Y, Chow J, Mordes D, Lee M . Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane alters tissue response to implanted Ahmed glaucoma valve. Curr Eye Res. 2009; 34(7):562-7. DOI: 10.1080/02713680902963167. View

15.

Hinkle D, Zurakowski D, Ayyala R . A comparison of the polypropylene plate Ahmed glaucoma valve to the silicone plate Ahmed glaucoma flexible valve. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2007; 17(5):696-701. DOI: 10.1177/112067210701700502. View

16.

Ayyala R, HARMAN L, Ondrovic L, Haller E, Margo C, Stevens S . Comparison of different biomaterials for glaucoma drainage devices. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999; 117(2):233-6. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.117.2.233. View

17.

Law S, Nguyen A, Coleman A, Caprioli J . Comparison of safety and efficacy between silicone and polypropylene Ahmed glaucoma valves in refractory glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2005; 112(9):1514-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.04.012. View

18.

McCluskey P, Molteno A, Wakefield D, Di Girolamo N . Otago Glaucoma Surgery Outcome Study: the pattern of expression of MMPs and TIMPs in bleb capsules surrounding Molteno implants. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009; 50(5):2161-4. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.08-2063. View

19.

Heuer D, Lloyd M, Abrams D, Baerveldt G, Minckler D, Lee M . Which is better? One or two? A randomized clinical trial of single-plate versus double-plate Molteno implantation for glaucomas in aphakia and pseudophakia. Ophthalmology. 1992; 99(10):1512-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(92)31772-5. View

20.

Netland P . The Ahmed glaucoma valve in neovascular glaucoma (An AOS Thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2010; 107:325-42. PMC: 2814575. View