Article Text

PDF
Clinical science
Comparison of long-term surgical success of Ahmed Valve implant versus trabeculectomy in open-angle glaucoma
  1. D H Tran1,
  2. C Souza1,2,
  3. M J Ang1,
  4. J Loman1,
  5. S K Law1,
  6. A L Coleman1,
  7. J Caprioli1
  1. 1
    Glaucoma Division, Jules Stein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA
  2. 2
    Ophthalmology Department, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
  1. Correspondence to Dr J Caprioli, Glaucoma Division, Jules Stein Eye Institute, 100 Stein Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; caprioli{at}jsei.ucla.edu

Abstract

Aim: To compare the long-term intraocular pressure (IOP) outcomes of Ahmed Glaucoma Valve (AGV) implantation to trabeculectomy with mitomycin C (MMC) in open-angle glaucoma (OAG).

Methods: 78 OAG patients who underwent AGV implantation were matched with respect to age, preoperative surgery, preoperative IOP and preoperative medicines to 88 OAG patients who underwent trabeculectomy with MMC with a minimum of 3 years’ follow-up. The cumulative probability of success between the two groups with different criteria was analysed: (1) an IOP⩽21 mm Hg and a reduction of IOP⩾15% from baseline; and (2) an IOP⩽18 mm Hg and a reduction of IOP⩾20% from baseline. No loss of light perception, no additional glaucoma surgery and no hypotony were also required.

Results: The 5-year cumulative probability of success was not statistically significant between eyes that had an AGV or trabeculectomy with MMC when success was defined as criteria A (p = 0.094). However, when success was defined according to criteria B, eyes undergoing trabeculectomy with MMC had a higher rate of success (p = 0.024).

Conclusions: Trabeculectomy with MMC has a significantly higher 5-year cumulative probability of success compared with AGV implants when greater reduction IOP is necessary.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding Supported in part by an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness. The authors also received support from D May II, E Kelton and L Kelton.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the Human Subject Protection Committee at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • At a glance
    Harminder S Dua Arun D Singh