Effectiveness and safety of GlaucoDrain in treating refractory glaucoma
https://doi.org/10.21516/2072-0076-2026-19-2-22-28
Abstract
Purpose of the study: to evaluate the anatomic and functional outcomes as well as structure of complications of GlaucoDrain shunt implantation in patients with refractory glaucoma. Materials and methods: 60 patients (average age 70.40 ± 8.97 years) with various forms of refractory glaucoma (operatively treated primary open-angle glaucoma, secondary and juvenile) who had 62 shunts were followed-up. In 83.9% of the implantations, filtration surgeries were performed prior to implantation. Results. After 1 year of observation, “complete success” will be achieved in 86.3% of cases, “partial success” — in 7.0%. Median intraocular pressure (IOP, Pt) decreased from 24.5 [20; 28] to 14.0 [13; 17] mm Hg (p < 0.001). The most frequent complications were choroidal detachment (16.1% of cases, 11.3% of them hemorrhagic), which in most cases was purchased conservatively, and anterior uveitis (8.1%). Conclusion. With the nuances of surgical technique (temporary tube obturation) and postoperative pharmacological support (prolongation of hypotensive therapy for 4–6 weeks after surgery), the GlaucoDrain shunt demonstrates comparable efficiency and safety to the Ahmed valve.
About the Authors
A. V. Antonova
City Multidisciplinary Hospital No. 2; St. Petersburg State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anastasiya V. Antonova — Cand. of Med. Sci., head of microsurgery ophthalmological department No. 4, City Multidisciplinary Hospital No. 2; assistant of chair of otorhinolaryngology and ophthalmology, St. Petersburg State University.
5, Uchebnyy lane, St. Petersburg, 194354; St. Petersburg State University, 7/9, Universitetskaya emb., St. Petersburg, 199034
V. P. Nikolaenko
City Multidisciplinary Hospital No. 2; St. Petersburg State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vadim P. Nikolaenko — Dr. of Med. Sci., head of the department of ophthalmology, City Multidisciplinary Hospital No. 2; professor of chair of otorhinolaryngology and ophthalmology, St. Petersburg State University.
5, Uchebnyy lane, St. Petersburg, 194354; St. Petersburg State University, 7/9, Universitetskaya emb., St. Petersburg, 199034
M. I. Semenova
City Multidisciplinary Hospital No. 2
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Maria I. Semenova — ophthalmologist, microsurgery ophthalmological department No. 4.
5, Uchebnyy lane, St. Petersburg, 194354
References
1. Karlova E.V., Radaykina M.V. Valved and non-valved drainage systems in the surgical treatment of refractory glaucoma. Ophthalmology in Russia. 2019; 16 (1S): 123–6 (In Russ.). doi: 10.18008/1816-5095-2019-1S-123-126
2. Nikolaenko V.P., Konstantinova L.M., Pavlova O.G. Ahmed valve implantation: intraoperative and early postoperative complications. Ophthalmology reports. 2014; 7 (4): 10–2 (In Russ.). doi: 10.17816/OV2014410-12
3. Nikolaenko V.P., Brzheskiy V.V., Antonova A.V. The extension of indications for the implantation of Ahmed valve. Ophthalmology reports. 2023; 16 (2): 83–90 (In Russ.). doi: 10.17816/OV340821
4. Egorov E.A., Bikbov M.M., eds. National guideline on glaucoma. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media; 2021 (In Russ.).
5. Pazos M, Traverso CE, Viswanathan A, eds. European glaucoma society. Terminology and guidelines for glaucoma. 6th ed. Savona (Italy): PubliComm; 2025. https://dansk-oftalmologisk-selskab.dk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Glaucoma-Guidelines-6th-edition-English.pdf
6. Clinical Guidelines “Primary open angle glaucoma” (Electronic resource) (In Russ.). https://cr.minzdrav.gov.ru (access date: 08.17.2025).
7. Boland MV. Basic and clinical science course. Section 10: Glaucoma. 2025– 2026. San Francisco (CA): American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2025.
8. Basinskiy A.S., Gar’kavenko V.V., Karimov U.R., et al. Drainage surgery of primary open-angle glaucoma: past, present, future. Fyodorov journal of ophthalmic surgery. 2021; 2: 79–85 (In Russ.). doi: 10.25276/0235-4160-2021-2-79-85
9. Oblovatskaya E.S., Nikolaenko V.P. Ahmed valve implant and its place in the surgical treatment of glaucoma. National journal of glaucoma. 2022; 21 (2): 35–41 (In Russ.). doi: 10.53432/2078-4104-2022-21-2-35-41
10. Rascheskov A.Yu., Loskutov I.A. Modern technologies of refractory glaucoma treatment. Review. Ophthalmology in Russia. 2012; 9 (1): 4–9 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18008/1816-5095-2012-1-54-62
11. Rathi SG, Seth NG, Kaur S, et al. A prospective randomized controlled study of Aurolab aqueous drainage implant versus Ahmed glaucoma valve in refractory glaucoma: A pilot study. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2018; 66 (11): 1580–5. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_427_18
12. Bikbov M.M., Surkova V.K., Khusnitdinov I.I., et al. Results of implantation of drainage system Ahmed in patients with refractory glaucoma. Russian journal of clinical ophthalmology. 2013; 21 (3): 145–50 (In Russ.). https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/rezultaty-primeneniya-drenazha-ahmed-pri-refrakternoy-glaukome
13. Bikbov M.M., Khusnitdinov I.I. Analysis of hypotensive effect after Ahmed valve implantation in patients with refractory glaucoma. National journal of Glaucoma. 2016; 15 (3): 24–34 (In Russ.). https://www.glaucomajournal.ru/jour/article/view/115?locale=ru_RU
14. Kang YK, Shin JP, Kim DW. Long-term surgical outcomes of Ahmed valve implantation in glaucoma patients according to the type of glaucoma. BMC Ophthalmology. 2022; 22 (1): 270. doi: 10.1186/s12886-022-02493-w
15. Yu B, Xin M, Sun Y, et al. Intermediate-term outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in glaucoma patients. BMC Ophthalmology. 2025; 25: 474. doi: 10.1186/s12886-025-04310-6
16. Budenz DL, Barton K, Gedde SJ, et al. Five-year treatment outcomes in the Ahmed Baerveldt comparison study. Ophthalmology. 2015; 122 (2): 308–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.08.043
17. Barton K, Feuer WJ, Budenz DL, et al. Three-year treatment outcomes in the Ahmed Baerveldt comparison study. Ophthalmology. 2014; 121 (8): 1547–57. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.01.036
18. Papadonta SA, Kontopoulou K, Kollia E, et al. Long-term outcome after implantation of the Ahmed glaucoma valve in refractory glaucoma. Cureus. 2025; 17 (6). doi: 10.7759/cureus.85230
19. Tran L, Vo J, Bell K, et al. Does bevacizumab improve outcomes after Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation for refractory glaucoma? A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Glaucoma. 2024; 33 (6): 444–55. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000002357
20. Riva I, Roberti G, Katsanos A, et al. A review of the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant and comparison with other surgical operations. Advances in Therapy. 2017; 34 (4): 834–47. doi: 10.1007/s12325-017-0503-1
21. Talalaev M.A. Clinical case of surgical treatment of refractory secondary glaucoma against the background of chronic sluggish uveitis. Clinical cases in ophthalmology. 2025; 2 (9): 51 (In Russ.). doi: 10.25276/2949-4494-2025-2-51
22. Volkova N.V., Iureva T.N., Kuroyedov A.V. Analysis of the effectiveness and safety of implantation of drainage devices in glaucoma surgery. National journal Glaucoma. 2024; 23 (2): 79–94 (In Russ.). doi: 10.53432/2078-4104-2024-23-2-79-94
23. Koentjoro SL, Soebijantoro I, Istiantoro VW, et al. Comparison of complications after Ahmed versus Baerveldt implant in glaucoma patients: one year follow-up. International Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020; 13 (12): 1908–14. doi: 10.18240/ijo.2020.12.10
24. Mittal S, Pegu J, Daga D, et.al. Intermediate-term outcome of Aurolab aqueous drainage implant in refractory glaucoma. Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology. 2023; 37 (4): 321–6. doi: 10.4103/sjopt.sjopt_117_22
25. European Glaucoma Society Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma, 5th Edition. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021 Jun; 105 (Suppl 1): 1–169. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-egsguidelines
26. Astakhov Yu.S., Nikolaenko V.P., eds. Ophthalmology. Pharmacotherapy without mistakes. Second edition revised and supplemented. Moscow: E-noto; 2021 (In Russ.).
27. Sisodia VPS, Krishnamurthy R. Aurolab Aqueous Drainage Implant (AADI): review of indications, mechanism, surgical technique, outcomes, impact and limitations. Seminars in Ophthalmology. 2022; 37 (7–8): 856–68. doi: 10.1080/08820538.2022.2082254
28. Riva I, Roberti G, Oddone F, et al. Ahmed glaucoma valve implant: surgical technique and complications. Clinical Ophthalmology. 2017; 11: 357–67. doi: 10.2147/opth.s104220
29. Pathak Ray V, Rao DP. Surgical outcomes of a new low-cost nonvalved glaucoma drainage device in refractory glaucoma: results at 1 year. Journal of Glaucoma. 2018; 27 (5): 433–9. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000930
30. Puthuran GV, Palmberg P, Wijesinghe HK, et al. Intermediate-term outcomes of an affordable aqueous drainage implant in adults with refractory glaucoma. Ophthalmology Glaucoma. 2019; 2 (4): 258–66. doi: 10.1016/j.ogla.2019.03.009
31. Loskutov I.A., Andryukhina O.M., Khaldeev S.S. Drainage surgery of glaucoma (literature review). Effective pharmacotherapy. 2022; 18 (20): 20–6 (In Russ.). doi: 10.33978/2307-3586-2022-18-20-20-26
32. Ferrere M, Garcia-Mansilla I, de Gainza A. Navigating postoperative complications: Uveitis-glaucoma-hyphema syndrome after Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation. World Journal of Clinical Cases. 2024; 12 (36): 6944–6. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i36.6944
33. Gedde SJ, Feuer WJ, Lim KS, et al. Primary tube versus trabeculectomy study group. Postoperative complications in the primary tube versus trabeculectomy study during 5 years of follow-up. Ophthalmology. 2022; 129 (12): 1357–67. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.07.004
34. Jayasri P, Kaliaperumal S, Behera G, et al. Safety and efficacy of Aurolab aqueous drainage implant in refractory glaucoma: A prospective study. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2022; 70 (12): 4212–6. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1391_22
Review
For citations:
Antonova A.V., Nikolaenko V.P., Semenova M.I. Effectiveness and safety of GlaucoDrain in treating refractory glaucoma. Russian Ophthalmological Journal. 2026;19(2):22-28. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21516/2072-0076-2026-19-2-22-28
Views:
68
JATS XML
Email this article 