Surgical Outcomes of the Aurolab Aqueous Drainage Implant (AADI) Versus the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve for Refractory Paediatric Glaucoma in Middle Eastern Children
Overview
Affiliations
Objective: The Aurolab aqueous drainage implant (AADI) has the potential advantages of less encapsulation and greater cost-effectiveness than the Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV). The aim of this study was to compare the surgical success and outcomes of the AADI compared to the AGV in Middle-Eastern children.
Methods: A comparative retrospective study of consecutive paediatric patients in a tertiary eye hospital was undertaken. Data collected included demographics, type of glaucoma, intraocular pressure (IOP), number of anti-glaucoma medications (AGMs) and any subsequent complications or further surgeries.
Analysis: The mean IOP, number of AGMs, surgical success and number of reoperations was compared for the two groups. Surgical success at each visit was defined as IOP of ≥6 mm Hg and ≤21 mm Hg or if the reduction of IOP was ≥20% reduced from baseline.
Results: A total of 126 tube surgeries (56 eyes in AADI and 70 eyes in AGV) were performed in patients aged ≤18 years from 2014 to 2019. No difference was observed in the mean IOP between the two groups except at the first month post-operative visit. After six months, the AADI group had a consistently significant lower mean number of AGMs. At last follow-up, 21 (37.5%) eyes in the AADI group were glaucoma medication-free vs 15 (21.4%) eyes in the AGV group (pp=0.047). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed equivalent cumulative probability of success at two years of 69.9% [(45.9%-84.9%)] for AADI vs 66.8% [(53.4%-77.1%])) for the AGV, respectively. Twenty-four eyes in the AGV group needed one or more subsequent surgeries, whereas 13 eyes needed one or more surgery in the AADI group.
Conclusions: This study shows an acceptable safety profile for the AADI in children, with a rate of failure that is comparable to the AGV, but less need for glaucoma re-operation or glaucoma medication in the first post-postoperative year.
Fu X, He J, Li G, Luo H, Peng R, Cheng Y Sci Prog. 2025; 108(1):368504241301520.
PMID: 39840485 PMC: 11752183. DOI: 10.1177/00368504241301520.
Khan A, Abdalla Elsayed M, Malik R Front Ophthalmol (Lausanne). 2024; 4:1361898.
PMID: 38984121 PMC: 11182133. DOI: 10.3389/fopht.2024.1361898.
Current surgical techniques for the management of pediatric glaucoma: A literature review.
Aktas Z, Gulpinar Ikiz G Front Ophthalmol (Lausanne). 2024; 3:1101281.
PMID: 38983044 PMC: 11182127. DOI: 10.3389/fopht.2023.1101281.
Glaucoma drainage devices in children: an updated review.
Vasconcelos A, Massote J, Senger C, Prudente Barbieri L, Cronemberger S, Paula J Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2024; 87(6):e2021.
PMID: 38597522 PMC: 11633839. DOI: 10.5935/0004-2749.2021-0338.
Assessing the Efficacy of the PAUL Glaucoma Implant in Pseudoexfoliative Glaucoma.
Olgun A, Karapapak M Beyoglu Eye J. 2024; 9(1):26-32.
PMID: 38504964 PMC: 10944855. DOI: 10.14744/bej.2024.96729.