You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Perspective
Glaucoma drainage devices; past, present, and future
  1. K S Lim,
  2. B D S Allan,
  3. A W Lloyd,
  4. A Muir,
  5. P T Khaw
  1. Institute of Ophthalmology, London and University of Brighton, Brighton
  2. Moorfields Eye Hospital, London
  3. University of Brighton, Brighton
  4. Biocompatibles Ltd, Farnham, Hants
  5. Institute of Ophthalmology, London and Moorfields Eye Hospital, London
  1. K S LIM
  1. Institute of Ophthalmology, London and University of Brighton, Brighton
  2. Moorfields Eye Hospital, London
  3. University of Brighton, Brighton
  4. Biocompatibles Ltd, Farnham, Hants
  5. Institute of Ophthalmology, London and Moorfields Eye Hospital, London
  1. B D S ALLAN
  1. Institute of Ophthalmology, London and University of Brighton, Brighton
  2. Moorfields Eye Hospital, London
  3. University of Brighton, Brighton
  4. Biocompatibles Ltd, Farnham, Hants
  5. Institute of Ophthalmology, London and Moorfields Eye Hospital, London
  1. A W LLOYD
  1. Institute of Ophthalmology, London and University of Brighton, Brighton
  2. Moorfields Eye Hospital, London
  3. University of Brighton, Brighton
  4. Biocompatibles Ltd, Farnham, Hants
  5. Institute of Ophthalmology, London and Moorfields Eye Hospital, London
  1. A MUIR
  1. Institute of Ophthalmology, London and University of Brighton, Brighton
  2. Moorfields Eye Hospital, London
  3. University of Brighton, Brighton
  4. Biocompatibles Ltd, Farnham, Hants
  5. Institute of Ophthalmology, London and Moorfields Eye Hospital, London
  1. P T KHAW
  1. Institute of Ophthalmology, London and University of Brighton, Brighton
  2. Moorfields Eye Hospital, London
  3. University of Brighton, Brighton
  4. Biocompatibles Ltd, Farnham, Hants
  5. Institute of Ophthalmology, London and Moorfields Eye Hospital, London
  1. Mr K S Lim, Wound Healing Research Unit, Department of Pathology, Institute of Ophthalmology, Bath Street, London EC1V 9EL.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.82.9.1083

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.

    Glaucoma filtration surgery (GFS) has been shown to be more effective at preventing disease progression than other primary treatment modalities in open angle glaucoma.1 2 If it were possible to avoid complications associated with poor flow control, primary GFS would probably be offered more widely.

    Trabeculectomy, the procedure of choice in conventional GFS, has remained essentially unchanged for over a quarter of a century. Local control over wound healing with antimetabolite agents such as 5-fluorouracil and mitomycin C has improved the prognosis for cases with high risk of filtration failure; but flow control remains inexact despite the introduction of a variety of suture adjustment techniques.

    Glaucoma drainage devices (GDDs) have the potential to regulate flow consistently, eliminating hypotony after GFS. Design, material, and manufacturing deficiencies have left this potential unfulfilled in existing GDDs, all of which exhibit problems with poor flow control and suboptimal tissue compatibility. The role of GDDs in contemporary GFS remains poorly defined, but possibilities offered by new biomaterials and the goal of accurate flow control have stimulated considerable recent interest in GDD development. This review traces the progress of GDD design through to the present and beyond.

    Early glaucoma drainage devices

    In 1906, horse hair3 was placed through a corneal paracentesis in an attempt to drain a hypopyon externally. The same technique was later used to treat two patients with painful absolute glaucoma.4 Sporadic attempts using implants to shunt aqueous to a variety of unconventional sites, including the vortex veins5 and the nasolacrimal duct,6 have since been reported. Results were generally unfavourable or too poorly documented to evaluate, and attention has focused on devices shunting aqueous fluid to the subconjunctival space as with conventional GFS.

    The first translimbal GDD, reported by Zorab7 in 1912, was silk thread used as a seton to aid drainage …

    View Full Text