Brief Reports
Ahmed glaucoma valve implant for management of glaucoma in Sturge-Weber syndrome

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9394(99)00259-7Get rights and content

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in patients with glaucoma as a result of Sturge-Weber syndrome.

METHODS: Eleven eyes (10 patients) with glaucoma resulting from Sturge-Weber syndrome had placement of an Ahmed glaucoma valve implant from May 1993 to June 1996 at the Jules Stein Eye Institute. Success was defined by intraocular pressure at the last two consecutive visits of less than 21 mm Hg, no additional glaucoma surgery, no expulsive choroidal hemorrhage, and no retinal detachment.

RESULTS: Mean intraocular pressure on the first postoperative day was 14.0 mm Hg (SD ± 6.7). The cumulative probability of success was 79% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52% to 100%) at 24 months, 59% (95% CI, 20% to 98%) at 42 months, and 30% (95% CI, 0% to 75%) at 60 months.

CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of limited follow-up, the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant appears to be a relatively useful drainage device in eyes with glaucoma resulting from Sturge-Weber syndrome.

References (3)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (54)

  • Outcomes and lessons learned from two decades’ experience with glaucoma drainage device implantation for refractory Sturge Weber–associated childhood glaucoma

    2021, Journal of AAPOS
    Citation Excerpt :

    We found that GDD surgery for refractory glaucoma in patients with SWS was modestly successful, providing IOP reduction but with a high rate of postoperative complications. Success in the present series was similar to published studies in SWS-associated glaucoma,15,20 but slightly lower than the success of GDD for refractory primary congenital glaucoma.22 In a series of 24 eyes without prior surgery that underwent Ahmed valve placement, Kaushik and colleagues15 reported 75% success at 2 years.

View all citing articles on Scopus

This study was supported in part by an unrestricted grant from the Ahmanson Foundation to the Center of Eye Epidemiology, Jules Stein Eye Institute (A.L.C.).

View full text