June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Initial Results of Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma with Ahmed Wing Valve
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Jennifer Oakley
    University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
  • Cara Capitena
    University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
  • David Richards
    University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
  • William Layden
    University Glaucoma Center, Tampa, FL
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Jennifer Oakley, None; Cara Capitena, None; David Richards, None; William Layden, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 4756. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Jennifer Oakley, Cara Capitena, David Richards, William Layden; Initial Results of Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma with Ahmed Wing Valve. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):4756.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: To compare the surgical and visual outcomes of standard Ahmed valve with a new “wing” Ahmed valve in the treatment of advanced glaucoma. The plate of the wing valve has a surface area of approximately 450 mm-sq compared to a surface area of 180 mm-sq for the standard Ahmed valve.

Methods: This was a retrospective nonrandomized comparative trial of 30 consecutive patients who underwent implantation of the Ahmed wing valve compared with an equal number of age and sex matched controls who had standard Ahmed valve implantation. All procedures were performed by a single surgeon (WEL). We compared vision and intraocular pressures preoperatively and at intervals of one day, one week, two weeks, six weeks, 10 to 12 weeks, 5 to 7 months, and 10 to 14 months. We also compared complication rates between the two groups.

Results: By Students t-test, requiring p<0.05, intraocular pressures were statistically similar at all intervals except on postoperative day one when average IOP was 15 with the wing valve and 10.5 with the standard Ahmed valve (p=0.044). At the 10 to 14 month time point, average IOP with the wing valve was 15 compared to 19 with the standard valve, although this was not statistically significant (p = 0.099). The number of major complications (exposed valve with revision, explanted valve, or second valve implant) was 6 for the wing valve and 5 for the standard valve.

Conclusions: Despite the larger surface area, the wing valve did not produce a statistically significant lower IOP at the one year time point. The rate of complications was similar.

Keywords: 568 intraocular pressure  

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.