Comparison of the Outcome of Silicone Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Implantation with a Surface Area between 96 and 184 mm2 in Adult Eyes.
10.3341/kjo.2013.27.5.361
- Author:
Kyung Min KOH
1
;
Young Hoon HWANG
;
Jong Jin JUNG
;
Yong Ho SOHN
;
Hwang Ki KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, Kim's Eye Hospital, Myung-Gok Eye Research Institute, Konyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. eye1001@kimeye.com
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Comparative Study ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- Keywords:
Filtering surgery;
Glaucoma drainage implants
- MeSH:
Adult;
Female;
Glaucoma/physiopathology/*surgery;
*Glaucoma Drainage Implants;
Humans;
Intraocular Pressure/*physiology;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Prosthesis Design;
Retrospective Studies;
*Silicone Elastomers;
Tonometry, Ocular;
Treatment Outcome;
Visual Acuity
- From:Korean Journal of Ophthalmology
2013;27(5):361-367
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To compare the success rates, complications, and visual outcomes between silicone Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implantation with 96 mm2 (FP8) or 184 mm2 (FP7) surface areas. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of the records from 132 adult patients (134 eyes) that underwent silicone AGV implant surgery. Among them, the outcomes of 24 eyes from 24 patients with refractory glaucoma who underwent FP8 AGV implantation were compared with 76 eyes from 76 patients who underwent FP7 AGV implantation. Preoperative and postoperative data, including intraocular pressure (IOP), visual acuity, number of medications, and complications were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the 2 groups (p > 0.05). The postoperative visual acuity of the patients in the FP8 group was better than that of the patients in the FP7 group in some early postoperative periods (p < 0.05); however, after 10 postoperative months, visual acuity was not significantly different through the 3-year follow-up period (p > 0.05). Postoperative IOP was not significantly different between the 2 groups (p > 0.05) except for IOP on postoperative day 1 (11.42 mmHg for the FP7 group and 7.42 mmHg for the FP8 group; p = 0.031). There was no statistical difference in success rates, final IOP, number of medications, or complication rates between the 2 groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The FP7 and FP8 AGV implants showed no difference in terms of vision preservation, IOP reduction, and number of glaucoma medications required.
