Advertisement

Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation versus suprachoroidal silicone tube implantation following the injection of bevacizumab into the anterior chamber in patients with neovascular glaucoma

  • Tulay SimsekEmail author
  • Mustafa Değer Bilgeç
Glaucoma

Abstract

Purpose

This study compared the efficacy and safety of Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implantation versus suprachoroidal silicone tube (SST) implantation after the injection of bevacizumab into the anterior chamber in patients with neovascular glaucoma.

Methods

Patients were randomly assigned to undergo AGV or SST implantation. Bevacizumab was injected into the anterior chamber at a dosage of 1.25 mg/0.1 mL, 1 week before surgery. Intraocular pressure (IOP) control, complication, and success rates were compared between the groups. Success was defined as a final IOP > 5 mmHg, < 22 mmHg with or without any antiglaucoma drug.

Results

A total of 23 patients were enrolled in the study, including 13 (56.5%) in the AGV group (group 1) and 10 (43.5%) in the SST group (group 2). The mean baseline IOP was 42.0 ± 9.1 mmHg in group 1 and 39.5 ± 10 mmHg in group 2 (p > 0.05). The mean IOP was 16.9 ± 7.0 mmHg in group 1 and 12.5 ± 6.7 mmHg in group 2 on the first day after surgery. After a mean follow-up period of 19.4 ± 5.2 months, success was achieved in 12 (92.3%) patients in group 1 and in 1 (10%) patient in group 2. There was a statistically significant difference in terms of the success rate between groups (p < 0.05). Complications included hyphema in three (23%) patients, obstruction of the AGV tube by iris tissue in one (7.7%) patient, and tube exposure in one patient (7.7%) in group 1. Suprachoroidal silicone tube dislocation to the anterior chamber was observed in one (10%) patient in group 2.

Conclusion

AGV implantation after the injection of bevacizumab into the anterior chamber had a higher success rate than SST implantation. Complications were seen more frequently in the AGV group.

Keywords

Neovascular glaucoma Bevacizumab Suprachoroidal implant Ahmed glaucoma valve 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Shazly TA, Latina MA (2009) Neovascular glaucoma: etiology, diagnosis and prognosis. Semin Ophthalmol 24:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim M, Lee C, Payne R, Yue BY, Chang JH, Ying H (2015) Angiogenesis glaucoma filtration surgery and neovascular glaucoma: a review. Surv Ophthalmol 60:524–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen S, Zhou M, Wang W, Wu H, Yu X, Huang W, Gao X, Wang J, Li X, Du S, Ding X, Zhang X (2015) Levels of angiogenesis-related vascular endothelial growth factor family in neovascular glaucoma eyes. Acta Ophthalmol 93:e556–e560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown GC, Magargal LE, Schachat A, Shah H (1984) Neovascular glaucoma. Etiologic considerations. Ophthalmology 91:315–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sugimoto Y, Mochizuki H, Okumichi H, Takumida M, Takamatsu M, Kawamata S, Kiuchi Y (2010) Effect of intravitreal bevacizumab on iris vessels in neovascular glaucoma patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 248:1601–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wolf A, von Jagow B, Ulbig M, Haritoglou C (2011) Intracamereal injection of bevacizumab for the treatment of neovascular glaucoma. Ophthalmologica 226:51–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sisto D, Vetrugno M, Trabucco T, Cantatore F, Ruggeri G, Sborgia C (2007) The role of antimetabolites in filtration surgery for neovascular glaucoma: intermediate-term follow-up. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 85:267–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Palma C, Kim D, Singh AD, Singh A (2015) Neovascular glaucoma. In: Shaarawy T (ed) Glaucoma, vol 37. Elsevier, China, pp 425–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yalvac IS, Eksioglu U, Satana B, Duman S (2007) Long-term results of Ahmed glaucoma valve and Molteno implant in neovascular glaucoma. Eye 21:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson M, McLaren JW, Overby DR (2017) Unconventional aqueous humor outflow: a review. Exp Eye Res 158:94–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Emi K, Pederson JE, Toris CB (1989) Hydrostatic pressure of the suprachoroidal space. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 30:233–238Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kammer JA, Mundy KM (2015) Suprachoroidal devices in glaucoma surgery. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 22:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tamcelik N, Sarici AM, Yetik H, Ozkok A, Ozkiris A (2010) A novel surgical technique to prevent postoperative Ahmed valve tube exposure through conjunctiva: tenon advancement and duplication. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 41:370–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schraermeyer U, Diestelhorst M, Bieker A, Theisohn M, Mietz H, Ustundag C, Joseph G, Krieglstein GK (1999) Morphologic proof of the toxicity of mitomycin C on the ciliary body in relation to different application methods. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 237:593–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kee C, Pelzek CD, Kaufman PL (1995) Mitomycin C suppresses aqueous humor flow in cynomolgus monkeys. Arch Ophthalmol 113:239–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jordan JF, Engels BF, Dinslage S, Dietlein TS, Ayertey HD, Roters S, Esser P, Konen W, Krieglestein GK (2006) A novel approach to suprachoroidal drainage for the surgical treatment of intractable glaucoma. J Glaucoma 15:200–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oatts JT, Zhang Z, Tseng H, Shields MB, Sinard JH, Loewen NA (2013) In vitro and in vivo comparison of two suprachoroidal shunts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:5416–5423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Melamed S, Ben Simon GJ, Goldenfeld M, Simon G (2009) Efficacy and safety of gold micro shunt implantation to the supraciliary space in patients with glaucoma: a pilot study. Arch Ophthalmol 127:264–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hueber A, Roters S, Jordan JF, Konen W (2013) Retrospective analysis of the success and safety of gold micro shunt implantation in glaucoma. BMC Ophthalmol 13:35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Skaat A, Sagiv O, Kinori M, Simon GJB, Goldenfeld M, Melamed S (2016) Gold micro-shunt implants versus Ahmed glaucoma valve: long-term outcomes of a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Glaucoma 25:155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Unal M, Altıntas AGK, Koklu G, Tuna T (2011) Early results of suprachoroidal drainage tube implantation for the surgical treatment of glaucoma. J Glaucoma 20:307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hayreh SS, Klugman MR, Pet P, Sevais GA, Perkins ES (1990) Argon laser panretinal photocoagulation in ischemic central retinal vein occlusion a 10-year prospective study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 228:281–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vander JF, Duker JS, Benson WE, Brown GC, McNamara JA, Rosenstein RB (1991) Long-term stability and visual outcome after favorable initial response of proliferative diabetic retinopathy to panretinal photocoagulation. Ophthalmology 98:1575–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sampat KM, Garg SJ (2010) Complications of intravitreal injections. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 21:178–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Higashide T, Murotani E, Saito Y, Ohkubo SK (2012) Adverse events associated with intraocular injections of bevacizumab in eyes with neovascular glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 250:603–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bhagat PR, Agrawal KU, Tandel D (2016) Study of the effect of injection bevacizumab through various routes in neovascular glaucoma. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 10:39–48Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tailor R, Kinsella MT, Clarke JC (2018) Long-term outcome of intravitreal bevacizumab followed by Ahmed valve implantation in the management of neovascular glaucoma. Semin Ophthalmol 33:606–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mahdy RA, Nada WM, Fawzy KM, Alnashar HY, Almosalamy SM (2013) Efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab with panretinal photocoagulation followed by Ahmed valve implantation in neovascular glaucoma. J Glaucoma 22:768–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tang M, Fu Y, Wang Y, Zheng Z, Fan Y, Sun X, Xu X (2016) Efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab combined with Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation for the treatment of neovascular glaucoma. BMC Ophthalmol 16:7.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-016-0183-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shin JP, Lee JW, Sohn BJ, Kim HK, Kim SY (2009) In vivo corneal endothelial safety of intracameral bevacizumab and effect in neovascular glaucoma combined with Ahmed valve implantation. J Glaucoma 18:589–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmology, School of MedicineEskişehir Osmangazi UniversityEskişehirTurkey

Personalised recommendations