Important Clinical Trials in Glaucoma Drainage Devices

  • Monica Gandhi
  • Anupma Lal
  • Shibal Bhartiya


Trabeculectomy is considered as the gold standard surgery for glaucoma. Various models and designs of Glaucoma drainage devices (GDD) are also being implanted for both primary and refractory glaucomas. This chapter focuses on the three main RCTs, namely, the Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison (ABC) study, the Ahmed Versus Baerveldt (AVB) study and the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) study. A critical analysis of the surgical outcomes, merits and demerits of the implants and guidelines to make a rational decision is outlined.


  1. 1.
    Ramulu PY, Corcoran KJ, Corcoran SL, Robin AL. Utilization of various glaucoma surgeries and procedures in Medicare beneficiaries from 1995 to 2004. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:2265–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen PP, Yamamoto T, Sawada A, et al. Use of antifibrosis agents and glaucoma drainage devices in the American and Japanese Glaucoma Societies. J Glaucoma. 1997;6:192–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Desai MA, Gedde SJ, Feuer WJ, et al. Practice preferences for glaucoma surgery: a survey of the American Glaucoma Society in 2008. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2011;42:202–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Minckler DS, Francis BA, Hodapp EA, et al. Aqueous shunts in glaucoma: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:1089–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, et al. The Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study: design and baseline characteristics of study patients. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140(2):275–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, et al. Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study Group. Treatment outcomes in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) Study after five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153:789–803.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gedde SJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, et al. Postoperative complications in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) study during five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153:804–814.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barton K, Gedde SJ, Budenz DL, et al. Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study Group. The Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study: methodology, baseline patient characteristics, and intraoperative complications. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:435–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heuer DK, Barton K, Grehn F, et al. Consensus on definitions of success. In: Shaarawy TM, Sherwood MB, Grehn F, editors. Guidelines on design and reporting of surgical trials. World Glaucoma Association. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kugler; 2008. p. 15–24.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Budenz DL, Barton K, Feuer WJ, et al., Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study Group. Treatment outcomes in the Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study after 1 year of follow-up. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:443–452.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Christakis PG, Tsai JC, Zurakowski D, et al. The Ahmed Versus Baerveldt study: design, baseline patient characteristics, and intraoperative complications. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:2172–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Christakis PG, Kalenak JW, Zurakowski D, et al. The Ahmed Versus Baerveldt study: one-year treatment outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:2180–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Christakis PG, Tsai JC, Kalenak JW, et al. The Ahmed versus Baerveldt study: three-year treatment outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:2232–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Christakis PG, Kalenak JW, Tsai JC, Zurakowski D, Kammer JA, Harasymowycz PJ, et al. The Ahmed Versus Baerveldt Study: five-year treatment outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:2093–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Budenz DL, Barton K, Gedde SJ, et al. Five-year treatment outcomes in the Ahmed Baerveldt comparison study. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:308–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freedman J, Iserovich P. Pro-inflammatory cytokines in glaucomatous aqueous and encysted Molteno implant blebs and their relationship to pressure. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:4851–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Choritz L, Koynov K, Renieri G, et al. Surface topographies of glaucoma drainage devices and their influence on human tenon fibroblast adhesion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:4047–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heuer DK, Lloyd MA, Abrams DA, et al. 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;99:1512–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Molteno AC, Fucik M, Dempster AG, Bevin TH. Otago Glaucoma Surgery Outcome Study: factors controlling capsule fibrosis around Molteno implants with histopathological correlation. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:2198–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Britt MT, LaBree LD, Lloyd MA, et al. Randomized clinical trial of the 350-mm2 versus the 500-mm2 Baerveldt implant: longer term results: is bigger better? Ophthalmology. 1999;106:2312–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Seah SKL, Gazzard G, Aung T. Intermediate-term outcome of Baerveldt glaucoma implants in Asian eyes. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:888–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Christakis PG, Zhang D, Budenz DL, Barton K, Tsai JC, Ahmed II, ABC-AVB Study Groups. Five-year pooled data analysis of the Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study and the Ahmed Versus Baerveldt Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;176:118–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monica Gandhi
    • 1
  • Anupma Lal
    • 2
  • Shibal Bhartiya
    • 3
  1. 1.Anterior Segment and Glaucoma Services, Department of OphthalmologyDr. Shroff’s Charity Eye HospitalNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Lutheran HospitalFort WayneUSA
  3. 3.Department of OphthalmologyFortis Memorial Research InstituteGurgaonIndia

Personalised recommendations