Email this article 
Surgical treatment of Ahmed glaucoma valve’s tube protrusion relapse. Clinical observations
- Authors: Starostina A.V.1, Burlakov K.S.1
-
Affiliations:
- S. Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery Federal State Institution
- Issue: Vol 16, No 4 (2023)
- Pages: 91-97
- Section: Case reports
- URL: https://journals.eco-vector.com/ov/article/view/567990
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/OV567990
- ID: 567990
Cite item
Open Access
Access granted
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.
Full Text
About the authors
Anna V. Starostina
S. Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery Federal State Institution
Email: anna.mntk@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4496-0703
MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine)
Russian Federation, MoscowKonstantin S. Burlakov
S. Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery Federal State Institution
Author for correspondence.
Email: konstantin.burlakow@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4383-0325
Russian Federation, 59a, Beskudnikovskiy boulevard, Moscow, 127486
References
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
Supplementary files
