Drainage devices in refractory glaucoma surgery
https://doi.org/10.21516/2072-0076-2019-12-3-85-93
Abstract
Glaucoma is a socially sensitive disease, being one of the leading causes of irreversible visual impairment and blindness. Refractory glaucoma is one of the most severe forms of the disease as it is resistant to conservative and surgical methods of treatment. Because of pronounced postoperative fibroblastic activity of eye tissues, leading to gross scarring and obliteration of outflow paths, modern materials and methods of drainage surgery are needed. The review presents a variety of drains used today and considers in detail their main characteristics and the biocompatibility of the material used with eye tissues. Various groups of implants are presented, whose effectiveness and safety are compared and assessed. The statistics of postoperative complications and long-term results of surgical treatment are given.
About the Authors
S. I. Anisimov
A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry; Eye center “East Sight Recovery” LLC
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dr. Med. Sci., professor, chair of ophthalmology, scientific director
20, Bldg. 1, Delegatskaya St., Moscow, 127473; 38, Bolshoy Tishinsky pereulok, Moscow, 123557
S. Yu. Anisimova
Eye center “East Sight Recovery” LLC
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dr. Med. Sci., Professor, director
38, Bolshoy Tishinsky pereulok, Moscow, 123557
L. L. Arutyunyan
Eye center “East Sight Recovery” LLC; Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dr. Med. Sci., ophthalmologist2, professor, chair of ophthalmology
38, Bolshoy Tishinsky pereulok, Moscow, 123557; 2/1 Bldg. 1, Barrikadnaya St., Moscow, 125993
A. P. Voznyuk
A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
PhD student, ophthalmologist
20, Bldg. 1, Delegatskaya St., Moscow, 127473
References
1. Libman E.S., Gal'perin M.R., Grishina E.E., Senkevich N.Yu. Approaches to assessing the quality of life of ophthalmic patients. Clinical Ophthalmology. 2002; 3 (3): 119–21 (in Russian).
2. Anisimova S.Yu., Anisimov S.I., Larionov E.V. Glaucoma surgery XXI. Moscow: April; 2012 (in Russian).
3. Bessmertny A.M. On differentiated surgical treatment of principal forms of refractory glaucoma. RMJ Clinical ophthalmology. 2005; 2: 80–2 (in Russian).
4. Chuprov A.D., Gavrilova I.A. Comparative efficacy of using various drainages in refractory glaucoma. Glaucoma. 2010; 3: 41–5 (in Russian).
5. Wecker L. de. Sclerotomie simple et combinee. Ann. d’Ocul. 1894; 25: 112.
6. Volkov V.V., Brzheskiy V.V., Ushakov N.A. Ophthalmosurgery using polymers. Sankt Petersburg: Hippocrates; 2003 (in Russian).
7. Erichev V.P. Refractory glaucoma: features of treatment. Vestnik oftal’mologii. 2000; 116 (5): 8–10 (in Russian).
8. Lapochkin V.I., Svirin A.V., Korchuganova E.A. New operation in the treatment of refractory glaucomas — limbosсlerectomy with valvular drainage of the supraciliary space. Vestnik oftal’mologii. 2001; 117 (1): 9–11 (in Russian).
9. Andreeva L.D., Kiseleva O.A., Kosakyan S.M., et al. Experimental validation of the use of the autocorneal graft in fistulizing glaucoma surgery. Russian ophthalmological journal. 2011; 4 (2): 73–7 (in Russian).
10. Egorov E.A., ed. Glaucoma. National Guidelines. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2013 (in Russian).
11. Svetozarskiy S.N., Maslennikova Y.А., Anikeeva M.V. Modern technologies of open-angle glaucoma surgery. Sovremennye tehnologii v medicine. 2014; 6 (1): 102–7 (in Russian).
12. Egorov V.V., Badogina S.P. Comparative analysis of the results of glaucoma surgery using non-penetrating deep sclerectomy and non-penetrating deep sclerectomy with allodrainage. Ophthalmosurgery. 1993; 1: 62–5 (in Russian).
13. Khabibullina N.M., Galeeva G.Z., Rascheskov A.Yu. Advantages of spontaneous drainage in congenital glaucoma surgery. Medical technologies. Evaluation and selection. 2015; 3: 70–2 (in Russian).
14. Kornilaeva G.G. Combined cyclodialysis using allografts-drainage in the treatment of secondary glaucoma. Ophthalmosurgery. 2002; 14 (1): 13–6 (in Russian).
15. Kurysheva N.I., Marnykh S.A., Kizeev M.V., et al. Intrascleral implantation of amnion in the prevention of excessive scarring after antiglaucomatous operations (clinical and morphological study). Glaucoma. 2005; 1: 29–36 (in Russian).
16. Vashkevich G.V., Imshenetskaya T.A., Sitnik G.V., et al. Sinusotrabeculectomy with implantation of the amniotic membrane in refractory glaucoma. RMJ Clinical ophthalmology. 2010; 3: 90–2 (in Russian).
17. Eid T.E., Katz L.J., Spaeth G.L., et al. Tube-shunt surgery YAG cyclophotocoagulation in the management of neovascular glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1997; 104 (10): 1692–700. doi.org/10.1016/S01616420(97)30078-5
18. Anisimova S.Yu., Anisimov S.I., Rogacheva I.V., et al. New non-absorbable collagen drainage to improve the effectiveness of non-penetrating deep sclerolimbectomy. Glaucoma. 2003; 1: 19–23 (in Russian).
19. Anisimova S.Yu., Anisimov S.I., Larionov G.G. Morphological studies after implantation of antiglaucomatous collagen drainage. Russian medical news. 2005; 3: 53–6 (in Russian).
20. Gaydzhari T.P. The dynamics of the coefficient of lightness outflow after angular-suprachoroidal drainage in patients with primary glaucoma. Zaporozhskij Meditsinskij zhurnal. 2014; 4 (85): 26–9 (in Russian).
21. Anisimova S.Yu., Anisimova S.I., Rogacheva I.V. Long-term results of surgical treatment of refractory glaucoma using collagen drainage resistant to biodegradation. Glaucoma. 2011; 2: 28–33 (in Russian).
22. Alekseev B.N., Kabanov I.B. Silicone drainage in the treatment of glaucoma with neovascularization of the iris and iridocorneal angle. Vestnik oftal’mologii. 1986; 4: 12–5 (in Russian).
23. Naumenko V.V., Balashevich L.I., Kachurin A.E. The use of synthetic sapphire drainage in hypotensive surgery in patients with refractory forms of glaucoma. Vestnik orenburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2012; 12: 144–7 (in Russian).
24. Zhivotovskiy D.S., Doga V.R. Remote monitoring of glaucoma patients with drainage of the anterior chamber of the eye with a plastic tube. Oftal’mologicheskij zhurnal. 1970; 6: 451–2 (in Russian).
25. Kim C., Kim Y., Choi S., Lee S., Ahn B. Clinical experience of e-PTFE membrane implant surgery for refractory glaucoma. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2003; 87: 63–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjo.87.1.63
26. Volkov V.V., Gorban' A.I., Ushakov N.A. Allodrainage of the anterior chamber in glaucoma. Voprosy vosstanovitel’noj khirurgii. Leningrad; 1972 (in Russian).
27. Lieberman M.F., Ewing R.H. Drainage implant surgery for refractory glaucoma. Int. Ophthalmol. Clin. 1990; 30 (3): 198–208. doi. org/10.1097/00004397-199030030-00007
28. Taglia D.P., Perkins T.W., Gangnon R., et al. Comparison of the Ahmed glaucoma valve, the Krupin eye valve with disc and the doubleplate Molteno implant. J. Glaucoma. 2002; 11 (4): 347–53. doi. org/10.1097/00061198-200208000-00012
29. Molteno A.C., Bevin T.H., Herbison P., Houliston M.J. Otago glaucoma surgery outcome study: long-term follow-up of cases of primary glaucoma with additional risk factors drained by Molteno implants. Ophthalmology. 2001; 108 (12): 2193–200. doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00836-3
30. Takhchidi Kh.P., Metaev S.A., Cheglakov P.Yu. Comparative assessment of shunt drainage available in Russia in the treatment of refractory glaucoma. Glaucoma. 2008; 1: 52–5 (in Russian).
31. Molteno A.C., Bevin T.H., Herbison P., et al. Long-term results of primary trabeculectomies and Molteno implants for primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2011; 129 (11): 1444–50. doi: 10.1001/ archophthalmol.2011.221
32. Vuori M.L. Molteno aqueous shunt as a primary surgical intervention for uveitic glaucoma: long-term results. Acta Ophthalmol. 2010; 88 (1): 33–6. doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.2009.01759.x
33. Schocket S.S., Nirankari V. S., Lakhanpal V., et al. Anterior chamber tube shunt to an encircling band in the treatment of neovascular glaucoma and other refractory glaucomas. A long-term study. Ophthalmology. 1985; 92 (4): 553–62. doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(85)34009-5
34. Baerveldt G., Minckler D.S., Mills R.P. Implantation of drainage devices. Glaucoma surgical techniques. Ophthalmol. Monographs. 1991; 4: 180.
35. Lloyd M.A., Baerveldt G., Heur D.K., et al. Initial clinical experience with Baerveldt implant in complicated glaucomas. Ophthalmology. 1994; 101 (4): 640–50. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(94)31283-8
36. Siegner S.W, Netland P.A., Urban R.C., et al. Clinical experience with the Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant. Ophthalmology. 1995; 102 (9): 1298–307. doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(95)30871-8
37. Smith M.F., Sherwood M.B., McGorray S.P. Comparison of the double-plate Molteno drainage implant with the Schocket procedure. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1992; 110 (9): 1246–50. doi:10.1001/archopht.1992.01080210064026
38. Lotufo D.G. Postoperative complications and visual loss following Molteno implantation. Ophthalmolmic Surg. 1991; 70 (2): 145–54.
39. Palmer D.J., Klein C.S., Edward D.P. Scleral patch graft calcification and erosion following Molteno implant surgery. Ophthalmic Surg. Lasers Imaging. 2008; 39 (3): 230–1. doi.org/10.3928/1542887720080501-11
40. Lavin M., Franks W., Wormald R., et al. Clinical risk factors for failure in glaucoma tube surgery. A comparison of three tube designs. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1992; 110 (4): 480–5. doi:10.1001/archopht.1992.01080160058030
41. Krupin T., Ritch R., Camras C.B. A long Krupin — Denver valve implant attached to a 180 scleral explant for glaucoma surgery. Ophthalmology. 1988; 95 (9): 1174–80. doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(88)33030-7
42. Krupin T., Podos S.M., Becker B., Newkirk J.B. Valve implants in filtering surgery. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1976; 81 (2): 232–5. doi:10.1016/00029394(76)90737-6
43. Fellenbaum P.S., Almeida A.R., Minckler D.S., et al. Krupin disk implantation for complicated glaucomas. Ophthalmology. 1994; 101 (7): 1178–82. doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(13)31724-2
44. Christakis P.G., Kalenak J.W., Zurakowski D., et al. The Ahmed versus Baerveldt study. Ophthalmology. 2011; 118 (11): 2180–9. doi. org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.05.004
45. Coleman A.L., Smyth R., Wilson M.R., et al. Initial clinical experience with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in pediatric patients. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1997; 115 (2): 186–91. doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1997.01100150188007
46. Bhatia L.S., Chen T.C. New Ahmed valve design. Int. Ophthalmol. Clin. 2004; 44 (1): 123–38. doi.org/10.1097/00004397-200404410-00014
47. Abdelaziz A., Cap H., Banitt M.R., et al. Diplopia after glaucoma drainage device implantation. J AAPOS. 2013; 17 (2): 192–6. doi: 10.1016/j. jaapos.2012.11.017
48. Bailey A.K., Sarkisian S.R. Complications of tube implants and their management. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol. 2014; 25 (2): 148–53. doi: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000034
49. Lotufo D.G. Postoperative complications and visual loss following Molteno implantation. Ophthalmic Surg. 1991; 22 (11): 650–6.
50. Alvarado J.A., Hollander D.A., Juster R.P., Lee L.C. Ahmed valve implantation with adjunctive mitomycin C and 5-fluoruracil: long-term outcomes. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2008; 146 (2): 276–84. doi.org/10.1016/j. ajo.2008.04.008
51. Frank J.W., Perkins T.W., Kushner B.J. Ocular motility defects in patients with Krupin valve implant. Ophthalmic Surg. 1995; 26: 228–32.
52. Gil-Carrasco F., Salinas-Van Orman E., Recillas-Gispert C. Ahmed valve implant for uncontrolled uveitic glaucoma. Ocul. Immunol. Inflamm. 1998; 6 (1): 27–37. doi.org/10.1076/ocii.6.1.27.8078
53. Lee E.K., Yun Y.J., Lee J.E., et al. Changes in corneal endothelial cells after Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation: 2-year follow-up. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2009. 148 (3): 361–7. doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2009.04.016
54. Al-Mobarak F., Khan A.O. Complications and 2-year valve survival following Ahmed valve implantation during the first 2 years life. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2009; 93: 795–8. doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2008.150037
55. Glovinsky Y., Belkin M., Epstein Y. Biocompatibility of the Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma drainage implant. J. Glaucoma. 2003; 12 (3): 275–80. doi.org/10.1097/00061198-200306000-00017
56. Rijneveld W. J., Jongebloed W. L., Worst J. G., et al. Comparison of the reaction of the cornea to nylon and stainless steel sutures: an animal study. Doc. ophthalmol. 1989; 72 (3–4): 297–307. doi.org/10.1007/bf00153497
57. Кумар В., Душин Н.В. Клинический опыт применения металлического шва в микрохирургии глаза. Вестник офтальмологии. 2003; 119 (5): 16–20. Kumar V., Dushin N.V. Clinical experience of using a metal suture in eye microsurgery. Vestnik oftal’mologii. 2003; 119 (5): 16–20 (in Russian).
58. Stein J.D., Herndon L.W., Brent Bond J., Challa P. Exposure of ExPRESS miniature glaucoma devices case series and technique for tube shunt removal. J. Glaucoma. 2007; 16: 704–6. doi.org/10.1097/ ijg.0b013e31806ab314
59. Feo F., Bagnis A., Bricola G., et al. Efficacy and safety of a steel drainage device implanted under a scleral flap. Can. J. Ophthalmol. 2009; 44 (4): 457–62. doi.org/10.3129/i09-120
60. Dahan E., Carmichael T.R. Implantation of a miniature glaucoma device under a scleral flap. J. Glaucoma. 2005; 14 (5): 98–102. doi: 10.1097/01. ijg.0000151688.34904.b7
61. Maris P.J.Jr., Ishida K., Netland P.A. Comparison of trabeculectomy with Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma device implanted under scleral flap. J. Glaucoma. 2007; 16 (1): 14–9. doi: 10.1097/01.ijg.0000243479.90403.cd
62. Kanner E.M., Netland P.A., Sarkisian S.R., Du H. Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma device implanted under a scleral flap alone or combined with phacoemulsification cataract surgery. J. Glaucoma. 2009; 18 (6): 488–91. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31818fb44e
63. Pershin K.B., Pashinova N.F., Tsygankov A.Yu., et al. Non-penetrating deep sclerectomy and implantation of Ex-PRESS R-50 drainage in the surgical treatment of glaucoma. National Journal of Glaucoma. 2018; 7 (1): 43–53 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.25700/NJG.2018.01.05
64. Wagschal L.D., Trope G.E., Jinapriya D., et al. Prospective randomized study comparing Ex-PRESS to trabeculectomy: 1-year results. J. Glaucoma. 2015; 24 (8): 624–9. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000029
65. Moisseiev E., Zunz Er., Tzur R. Standard trabeculectomy and Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma shunt: a comparative study and literature review. Journal of Glaucoma. 2015; 24: 410–6. doi:10.1097/ IJG.0000000000000047
66. Melamed S., Simon G. J. B., Goldenfeld M., et al. Efficacy and safety of gold micro shunt implantation to the supraciliary space in patients with glaucoma. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2009; 127 (3): 264–9. doi.org/10.1001/ archophthalmol.2008.611
67. Khaimi M.A. Canaloplasty using iTrack 250 microcatheter with suture tensioning on Schlemm's canal. Middle East Afr. J. Ophthalmol. 2009; 16 (3): 127–9. doi: 10.4103/0974-9233.56224
68. Shingeleton B., Tetz M., Korber N. Circumferential viscodilation and tensioning of Schlemm canal (canaloplasty) with temporal clear corneal phacoemulsification cataract surgery for open-angle glaucoma and visually significant cataract. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2008; 34: 433–40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.11.029
69. Cheng J.-W., Cheng S.W., Cai J.P., et al. Systematic overview of the efficacy of nonpenetrating glaucoma surgery in the treatment of open angle glaucoma. Med. Sci. Monit. 2011; 17 (7): 155–63. doi: 10.12659/ MSM.881840
70. Gandolfi S.A., Ungaro N., Ghirardini S., et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes between canaloplasty and Schlemm’s canal scaffold at 24 months’ follow-up. J. Ophthalmol. 2016; 2016: 1–5. dx.doi. org/10.1155/2016/3410469
71. Ayyala R.S., Zukarowski D., Smith J.A. A clinical study of the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in advanced glaucoma. Ophthalmol. 1998; 105 (10): 1968–76. doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(98)91049-1
72. Spiegel D., Wetzel W., Neuhann T., et al. Coexistent primary open-angle glaucoma and cataract: interim analysis of a trabecular micro-bypass stent and concurrent cataract surgery. Eur. J. Ophthalmol. 2009. 19 (3): 393–9. doi.org/10.1177/112067210901900311
73. Pourjavan S., Collignon N., De Groot V. STARFlo glaucoma implant: 12 month clinical results. Acta Ophthalmologica. 2013; 91: 252. doi. org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.2013.3723.x
74. Hoeh H., Ahmed II., Grisanti S., et al. Early postoperative safety and surgical outcomes after implantation of a suprachoroidal micro-stent for the treatment of open-angle glaucoma concomitant with cataract surgery. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2013; 39 (3): 431–7. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j. jcrs.2012.10.040
75. Erichev V.P., Khachatryan G.K. Glycosaminoglycan matrix in the prevention of conjunctival scleral scarring with sinusstrabeculectomy. National journal of glaucoma. 2018; 17 (1): 37–42 (in Russian). https:// doi.org/DOI: 10.25700/NJG.2018.01.04
76. Elhefney E.M., Al-Sharkawy H.T., Kishk H.M., et al. Safety and efficacy of collagen matrix implantation in infantile glaucoma. Eur. J. Ophthalmol. 2017; 27: 289–94. doi: 10.5301/ejo.5000859
77. Boey P.Y., Narayanaswamy A., Zheng C., et al. Imaging of blebs after phacotrabeculectomy with Ologen collagen matrix implants. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2011; 95: 340–4. doi:10.1136/bjo.2009.177758
78. Perez C., Mellado F., Jones A., et al. Trabeculectomy combined with collagen matrix implant (Ologen). J. Glaucoma. 2017; 26 (1): 54–8. doi. org/10.1097/ijg.0000000000000551
79. Rosentreter A., Schild A.M., Jordan J.F., et al. A prospective randomised trial of trabeculectomy using mitomycin C vs an ologen implant in open angle glaucoma. Eye (Lond). 2010; 24 (9): 1449–57. doi:10.1038/ eye.2010.106
80. Vinod K., Gedde S.J. Clinical investigation of new glaucoma procedures. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol. 2017; 28 (2): 187–93. doi: 10.1097/ ICU.0000000000000336
81. Gusev Yu.A., Trubilin V.N., Makkayeva S.M. Viscosurgery in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma. Glaucoma. 2004; 3: 3–7 (in Russian).
82. Roy S., Mermoud A. Cross-linked hyaluronic acid injection maintains long-term filtration after trabeculectomy. Ocular surgery news. 2010; 21: 78–81.
83. Stuermer J., Mermoud A., Sunaric Megevand G. Trabeculectomy with mitomycin C supplemented with cross-linking hyaluronic acid: a pilot study. Klin. Monatsbl. Augen. heilkd. 2010; 273–6. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1245186
84. Slonimskiy A.Yu., Alekseev I.B., Dolgikh S.S., et al. New biodegradable drainage “Glautex” in the surgical treatment of glaucoma. National Journal of Glaucoma. 2012; 11 (4): 55–9 (in Russian).
85. Bikbov M.M., Khusnitdinov I.I. Remote clinical and functional results of surgical treatment of neovascular glaucoma with the use of drainage “Glautex” and the valve Ahmed. Ophthalmology. 2017; 1: 47–52 (in Russian).
Review
For citations:
Anisimov S.I., Anisimova S.Yu., Arutyunyan L.L., Voznyuk A.P. Drainage devices in refractory glaucoma surgery. Russian Ophthalmological Journal. 2019;12(3):85-93. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21516/2072-0076-2019-12-3-85-93
Views:
1209
Email this article 