You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Clinical science
Long-term outcome of low-cost glaucoma drainage device (Aurolab aqueous drainage implant) compared with Ahmed glaucoma valve
  1. Surinder Singh Pandav1,
  2. Natasha Gautam Seth2,
  3. Faisal Thattaruthody3,
  4. Manpreet Kaur3,
  5. Madhuri Akella3,
  6. Abhinav Vats3,
  7. Sushmita Kaushik3,
  8. Srishti Raj1
  1. 1 Advanced Eye Centre, Postgraduate Institue of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
  2. 2 Advanced Eye Centre, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
  3. 3 Department of Ophthalmology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
  1. Correspondence to Professor Surinder Singh Pandav, Advanced Eye Centre, Postgraduate Institue of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh 160012, India; sspandav{at}yahoo.com

Abstract

Purpose To compare the long-term outcome of Aurolab aqueous drainage device (AADI) and Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV).

Method Retrospective analysis of patients with refractory glaucoma who underwent AGV (AGV-FP7) and AADI (AADI Model 350) implantation. The outcome measures were intraocular pressure (IOP), requirement of antiglaucoma medications (AGMs) and re-surgery for IOP control. The postoperative complications were classified as early (≤3 months), intermediate (>3 months to ≤1 year) or late (>1 year).

Results 173 patients (189 eyes) underwent AGV implantation (AGV Group) while 201 patients (206 eyes) underwent AADI implantation (AADI group). The IOP in AADI group was significantly lower than AGV group at all time points till 2 years and comparable at 3 years. AADI group had significantly higher number of AGM in preoperative period and significantly lower number in postoperative period till 3 years compared with AGV group. AADI group had more hypotony-related complications but statistically insignificant (p = 0.07). The surgical interventions were significantly higher in AGV (n = 18) compared with AADI group (n = 5) in late postoperative period (p = 0.01). At 3 years, overall success was seen in 58.18% in AGV and 73.08% in AADI group (p = 0.15). Complete success was seen in 7.27% patients in AGV and 25.00% patients in AADI group (p = 0.02).

Conclusion Both AADI and AGV implant had comparable mean IOP at 3 years with lesser requirement of AGM in the AADI group. Both procedures appear to be safe with slight preponderance of hypotony-related complications in AADI group.

  • Ahmed glaucoma valve
  • Aurolab aqueous drainage implant
  • intraocular pressure
  • refractory glaucoma

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-313942

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors SSP: Concept and design of work, critical revision of content, final approval of version to be published, accountable for all aspects of work in ensuring questions related to accuracy or integrity of any part of work are appropriately investigated and resolved. NGS: Data acquisition, analysis, preparation of manuscript. FT and MK: Data acquisition, preparation of manuscript. MA and AV: Data acquisition and interpretation. SK and SR: Revision of manuscript for important intellectual content.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

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

    • Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

    Linked Articles

    • At a glance
      Highlights from this issue
      Keith Barton James Chodosh Jost B Jonas
      British Journal of Ophthalmology 2020; 104 i-ii Published Online First: 24 Mar 2020. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316223