Incisional Therapies: Shunts and Valved Implants

  • John W. BoyleIV
  • Peter A. Netland


The earliest attempts to drain fluid out of the anterior chamber into the subconjunctival space consisted of implanting a variety of foreign objects into the eye extending from the anterior chamber to the subconjunctival space. These early operations failed because of excessive fibrosis over the subconjunctival portion of the implant at the limbus, seton migration, or conjunctival erosion. Dr. Anthony Molteno introduced the concept of draining fluid away from the anterior chamber to a plate posterior to the limbus. The Molteno implant had an episcleral plate positioned in the equatorial region, which was connected to the anterior chamber by means of an elongated silicone tube.


Intraocular Pressure Anterior Chamber Elevated Intraocular Pressure Neovascular Glaucoma Ahmed Glaucoma Valve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Molteno AC, Straughan JL, Ancker E, et al. Long tube implants in the management of glaucoma. S Afr Med J. 1976;50:1062–1066.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krupin T, Podos SM, Becker B, et al. Valve implants in filtering surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 1976;81:232–235.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tam MM, Choplin N, Coleman A, et al. Preliminary results of glaucoma valve implant clinical trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35:1914.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Molteno AC. The optimal design of drainage implants for glaucoma. Trans Ophthalmol Soc N Z. 1981;33:29–41.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Al-Aswad LA, Netland PA, Bellows AR, et al. Clinical experience with the double-plate Ahmed glaucoma valve. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141:390–391.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith MF, Starita RJ, Fellman RL, et al. Early clinical experience with the Baerveldt 350-mm2 glaucoma implant and associated extraocular muscle imbalance. Ophthalmology. 1993;100:914–918.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prata JA Jr, Mermoud A, LaBree L, et al. In vitro and in vivo flow characteristics of glaucoma drainage implants. Ophthalmology. 1995;102:894–904.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Francis BA, Cortes A, Chen J, et al. Characteristics of glaucoma drainage implants during dynamic and steady-state flow conditions. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1708–1714.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eisenberg DL, Koo EY, Hafner G, et al. In vitro flow properties of glaucoma implant devices. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1999;30:662–667.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ayyala RS, Harman LE, Michelini-Norris B, et al. Comparison of different biomaterials for glaucoma drainage devices. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:233–236.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ayyala RS, Michelini-Norris B, Flores A, et al. Comparison of different biomaterials for glaucoma drainage devices: part 2. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:1081–1084.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lloyd MA, Baerveldt G, Fellenbaum PS, et al. Intermediate-term results of a randomized clinical trial of the 350- versus the 500-mm2 Baerveldt implant. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:1456–1463.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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;106:2312–2318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Freedman J. Clinical experience with the Molteno dual-chamber single-plate implant. Ophthalmic Surg. 1992;23:238–241.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gerber SL, Cantor LB, Sponsel WE. A comparison of postoperative complications from pressure-ridge Molteno implants versus Molteno implants with suture ligation. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1997;28:905–910.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Netland PA, Terada H, Dohlman CH. Glaucoma associated with keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:751–757.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, et al. Treatment outcomes in the tube versus trabeculectomy study after one year of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:9–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gedde SJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD. Surgical outcomes in the tube versus trabeculectomy study durgin the first year of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:23–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilson MR, Mendis U, Smith SD, et al. Ahmed glaucoma valve implant vs trabeculectomy in the surgical treatment of glaucoma: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:267–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wilson MR, Mendis U, Paliwal A, et al. Long term follow-up of primary glaucoma surgery with Ahmed glaucoma valve implant versus trabeculectomy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:464–470.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ayyala RS, Pieroth L, Vinals AF, et al. Comparison of mitomycin C trabeculectomy, glaucoma drainage device implantation, and laser neodymium:YAG cyclophotocoagulation in the management of intractable glaucoma after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1550–1556.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hill RA, Pirouzian A, Liaw L. Pathophysiology of and prophylaxis against late Ahmed glaucoma valve occlusion. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:608–612.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leen MM, Witkop GS, George DP. Anatomic considerations in the implantation of the Ahmed glaucoma valve. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114:223–224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kahook MY, Noecker RJ. Fibrin glue-assisted glaucoma drainage device surgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:1486–1490.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Molteno AC, Van Biljon G, Ancker E. Two stage insertion of glaucoma drainage implants. Trans Ophtalmol Soc N Z. 1979;31:17–26.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bilson F, Thomas R, Aylward W. The use of two-stage Molteno implants in developmental glaucoma. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1989;26:3–8.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Budenz DL, Sakamoto D, Eliezer R, et al. Two-staged Baerveldt glaucoma implant for childhood glaucoma associated with Sturge-Weber syndrome. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:2105–2110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Latina MA. Single stage Molteno implant with combination internal occlusion and external ligature. Ophthalmic Surg. 1991;22:444–446.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sherwood MB, Smith MF. Prevention of early hypotony associated with Molteno implants by a new occluding stent technique. Ophthalmology. 1993;100:85–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Price FW, Whitson WE. Polypropylene ligatures as a means of controlling intraocular pressure with Molteno implants. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1989;20:781–783.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Trible JR, Brown DB. Occlusive ligature and standardized fenestrations of a Baerveldt tube with and without antimetabolites for early postoperative intraocular pressure control. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:2243–2250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Al-Jazzaf AM, Netland PA, Charles S. Incidence and management of elevated intraocular pressure after silicone oil injection. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:40–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Netland PA, Schuman S. Management of glaucoma drainage implant tube kink and obstruction with pars plana clip. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2005;36:167–168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Joos KM, Lavina AM, Tawansky KA, et al. Posterior repositioning of glaucoma implants for anterior segment complications. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:279–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Luttrull JK, Avery RL, Baerveldt G, et al. Initial experience with pneumatically stented Baerveldt implant modified for pars plana insertion for complicated glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:143–149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Costa VP, Azuara-Blanco A, Netland PA, et al. Efficacy and safety of adjunctive mitomycin C during Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:1071–1076.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Irak I, Moster MR, Fontanarosa J. Intermediate-term results of Baerveldt tube shunt surgery with mitomycin C use. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2004;35:189–196.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Coleman AL, Hill R, Wilson MR, et al. Initial clinical experience with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Am J Ophthalmol. 1995;120:23–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Topouzis F, Coleman AL, Choplin N, et al. Follow-up of the original cohort with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128:198–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Huang MC, Netland PA, Coleman AL, et al. Intermediate-term clinical experience with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;127:27–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ayyala RS, Zurakowski D, Smith JA, et al. A clinical study of the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in advanced glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1968–1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Siegner SW, Netland PA, Urban RC, et al. Clinical experience with the Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant. Ophthalmology. 1995;102:1298–1307.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Price FW, Wellemeyer M. Long-term results of Molteno implants. Ophthalmic Surg. 1995;26:130–135.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mills RP, Reynolds A, Emond MJ, et al. Long-term survival of Molteno glaucoma drainage deices. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:299–305.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Krupin eye valve with disk for filtration surgery: The Krupin Eye Valve Filtering Study Surgery Group. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:651–658.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fellenbaum PS, Almedia AR, Minckler DS, et al. Krupin disk implantation for complicated glaucomas. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:1178–1182.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ishida K, Netland PA. Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in African-American and white patients. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124:800–806.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ishida K, Netland PA, Costa VP, et al. Comparison of polypropylene and silicone Ahmed glaucoma valves. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:1320–1326.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nouri-Mahdavi K, Caprioli J. Evaluation of the hypertensive phase after insertion of the Ahmed glaucoma valve. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:1001–1008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ayyala RS, Zurakowski D, Monshizadeh R, et al. Comparison of double plate Molteno and Ahmed glaucoma valve in patients with advanced glaucoma. Opthalmic Surg Lasers. 2002;33:94–101.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    WuDunn D, Phan AD, Cantor LB, et al. Clinical experience with the Baerveldt 250-mm2 Glaucoma implant. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:766–772.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Freedman J, Rubin B. Molteno implants as a treatment for refractory glaucoma in black patients. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109:1417–1420.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    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;99:1512–1519.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chen TC, Bhatia LS, Walton DS. Ahmed valve surgery for refractory pediatric glaucoma: a report of 52 eyes. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2005;42:274–283.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Djodeyre MR, Calvo JP, Gomez JA. Clinical evaluation and risk factors of time to failure of Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in pediatric patients. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:614–620.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Englert JA, Freedman SF, Cox TA. The Ahmed valve in refractory pediatric glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;127:34–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Coleman AL, Smyth RJ, Wilson MR, et al. Initial clinical experience with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in pediatric patients. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:186–191.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Netland PA, Walton DS. Glaucoma drainage implants in pediatric patients. Ophthalmic Surg. 1993;24:723–729.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ishida K, Mandal AK, Netland PA. Glaucoma drainage implants in pediatric patients. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2005;18:431–442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mandal AK, Netland PA. The Pediatric Glaucomas. Edinburgh: Elsevier; 2006.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Da Mata A, Burk SE, Netland PA, et al. Management of uveitic glaucoma with Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:2168–2172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ceballos EM, Parrish RK, Schiffman JC. Outcome of Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implants for the treatment of uveitic glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:2256–2260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Netland PA, Denton NC. Uveitic glaucoma. Contemp Ophthalmol. 2006;5:1–8.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Papadaki TG, Zacharopoulos IP, Pasquale LR, et al. Long-term results of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation for uveitic glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144:62–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sidoti PA, Duphy TR, Baerveldt G, et al. Experience with the Baerveldt glaucoma implant in treating neovascular glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1995;102:1107–1118.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Foulks GN. Glaucoma associated with penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 1987;94:871–874.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Franca ET, Arcieri ES, Arcieri RS, et al. A study of glaucoma after penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 2002;21:284–288.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Insler MS, Cooper HD, Kastl PR, et al. Penetrating keratoplasty with trabeculectomy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1985;100:593–595.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Coleman AL, Mondino BJ, Wilson MR, et al. Clinical experience with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in eyes with prior or concurrent penetrating keratoplasties. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;123:54–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wilson RP, Cantor L, Katz LJ, et al. Aqueous shunts. Molteno versus Schocket. Ophthalmology. 1992;99:672–678.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Feldman RM, el-Harazi SM, Villanueva G. Valve membrane adhesion as a cause of Ahmed glaucoma valve failure. J Glaucoma. 1997;6:10–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Trigler L, Proia AD, Freedman SF. Fibrovascular ingrowth as a cause of Ahmed glaucoma valve failure in children. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141:388–389.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Tessler Z, Jluchoded S, Rosenthal G. Nd: YAG laser for Ahmed tube shunt occlusion by the posterior capsule. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1997;28:69–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Sarkisian SR, Netland PA. Tube extender for revision of glaucoma drainage implants. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:637–639.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Munoz M, Parrish RK. Strabismus following implantation of Baerveldt drainage devices. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:1096–1099.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Dobler-Dixon AA, Cantor LB, Sondhi N, et al. Prospective evaluation of extraocular motility following double-plate Molteno implantation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:1155–1160.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Christmann LM, Wilson ME. Motility disturbances after Molteno implants. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1992;29:44–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Frank JW, Perkins TW, Kushner BJ. Ocular motility defects in patients with Krupin valve implant. Ophthalmic Surg. 1995;26:228–232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Al-Torbak AA, Al-Shahwan S, Al-Jadaan I, et al. Endophthalmitis associated with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:454–458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar


  1. Gedde SJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, Budenz DL, Feuer WJ, Schiffman JC. Surgical complications in the tube versus trabeculectomy study during the first year of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(1):23-31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, Budenz DL and the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study Group. Treatment outcomes in the tube vs trabeculectomy study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(1):9-22.Google Scholar
  3. Jamil A, Mills R. Glaucoma tube or trabeculectomy? That is the question. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(1):141-142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Stein JD, Ruiz D Jr, Belsky D, Lee PP, Sloan FA. Longitudinal rates of postoperative adverse outcomes after glaucoma surgery among medicare beneficiaries 1994 to 2005. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(7):1109-1116.e7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar


  1. Ayyala RS, Harman LE, Michelini-Norris B, et al. Comparison of different biomaterials for glaucoma drainage devices. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:233-236.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayyala RS, Michelini-Norris B, Flores A, et al. Comparison of different biomaterials for glaucoma drainage devices: part 2. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:1081-1084.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayyala RS, Zurakowski D, Monshizadeh R, et al. Comparison of double plate Molteno and Ahmed glaucoma valve in patients with advanced uncontrolled glaucoma. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 2002;33:94-101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayyala RS, Zurakowski D, Smith JR, et al. A clinical study of the Ahmed Glaucoma valve implant in advanced glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1968-1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campagna JA, Munden PM, Alward WL. Tenon’s cyst formation after trabeculectomy with mitomycin C. Ophthalmic Surg. 1995;26:57-60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen PP, Palmberg PF. Needling revision of glaucoma drainage device filtering blebs. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:1004-1010.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Costa VP, Correa MM, Kara-Jose N. Needling versus medical treatment in encapsulated blebs. A randomized prospective study. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:1215-1220.Google Scholar
  8. Eibschitz-Tsimhoni M, Schertzer RM, Musch DC, Moroi SE. Incidence and management of encapsulated cysts following Ahmed glaucoma valve insertion. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:276-279.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellingham RB, Morgan WH, Westlake W, House PH. Mitomycin C eliminates the short-term intraocular pressure rise found following Molteno tube implantation. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2003;31:191-198.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freedman J, Rubin B. Molteno implants as a treatment for refractory glaucoma in black patients. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109:1417-1420.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hinkle DM, Zurakowski D, Ayyala RS. A comparison of the polypropylene plate Ahmed glaucoma valve to the silicone plate Ahmed glaucoma flexible valve. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2007;17:696-701.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Jampel HD, Moon J, Quigley HA, Barron Y, Lam K. Aqueous humor uric acid and ascorbic acid concentrations and the outcome of trabeculectomy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:281-285.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kouros N, Caprioli J. Evaluation of the hypertensive phase after insertion of the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:1001-1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lloyd MA, Baerveldt G, Nguyen QH, Minckler DS. Long-term histologic studies of the Baerveldt implant in a rabbit model. J Glaucoma. 1996;5:334-339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mackenzie PJ, Schertzer RM, Isbister CM. Comparison of silicone and polypropylene Ahmed glaucoma valves: 2 year follow-up. Can J Ophthalmol. 2007;42:227-232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Molteno ACB, Fucik M, Dempster AG, Bevin TH. Otago Glaucoma Surgery Outcome Study. Facotrs controlling capsule fibrosis around Molteno implants with histopathologic correlation. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:2198-2206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Molteno ACB, Suter AJ, Fenwick M, Bevin TH, Dempster AG. Otago Glaucoma Surgery Outcome Study: cytology and immunohistochemical staining of bleb capsules around Molteno implants. Invest Ophthamol Vis Sci. 2006;47(5):1975-1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Richter CU, Shingleton BJ, Bellows AR, Hutchinson BT, O’Connor T, Brill I. The development of encapsulated filtering blebs. Ophthalmology. 1988;95:1163-1168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Schwartz AL, Van Veldhuisen PC, Gaasterland DE, et al. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIA): 5. Encapsulated bleb after initial trabeculectomy. Am J Ophthalmol. 199;127:8-19.Google Scholar
  20. Scott DR, Quigley HA. Medical management of a high bleb phase after trabeculectomy. Ophthalmology. 1988;95:1169-1173.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Seigner SW, Netland PA, Urban RC, et al. Clinical experience with the Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant. Ophthalmology. 1995;102:1298-1307.Google Scholar
  22. Shah AA, WuDunn D, Cantor LB. Shunt Revision versus additional tube shunt implantation after failed tube shunt surgery in refractory glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:455-460.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sherwood MB, Spaeth GL, Simmones ST, et al. Cysts of Tenon’s capsule following filtration surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105:1517-1521.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Susanna R, Latin America Glaucoma Society Investigators. Partial Tenon’s capsule resection with adjunctive mitomycin C in Ahmed glaucoma valve implant surgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:994-998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tripathi RC, Li J, Ghan WF, Tripathi BJ. Aqueous in glaucomatous eyes contains and increased level of TGF-beta 2. Exp Eye Res. 1994;59:723-729.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tsai JC, Johnson CC, Dietrich MS. The Ahmed shunt versus the Baerveldt shunt for refractory glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1814-1821.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yarangumeli A, Koz OG, Kural G. Encapsulated blebs following primary standard trabeculectomy: course and treatment. J Glaucoma. 2004:13:251-255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • John W. BoyleIV
    • 1
  • Peter A. Netland
    • 2
  1. 1.Instructor of OphthalmologyHamilton Eye Institute, University of Tennessee Health Science CenterMemphisUSA
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity of Virginia School of MedicineCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations