June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Tube Exposures in Glaucoma Drainage Devices
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Paramdeep Mand
    Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
  • Philip Chen
    Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
  • Mark Slabaugh
    Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Paramdeep Mand, None; Philip Chen, Allergan (C); Mark Slabaugh, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 4770. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Paramdeep Mand, Philip Chen, Mark Slabaugh; Tube Exposures in Glaucoma Drainage Devices. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):4770.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: Tube exposure can be a devastating complication of glaucoma drainage devices (GDDs), but information on the causes of this complication is lacking. We examined patients who underwent repair of tube exposures at a tertiary hospital in hopes to help identify those patients at risk and to conjecture possible causes of exposure.

Methods: Retrospective chart review was completed in order to perform this case-control study. The charts of consecutive patients who underwent repair for exposure of tubes of glaucoma drainage devices from 5/2001-5/2012 and controls matched for time of follow-up since GDD surgery to time of implant exposure were analyzed. Clinical data and outcomes were collected. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (Chicago, IL 2011), and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results: A total of 23 eyes with a GDD with tube erosions and 26 controls were identified. The mean age of those with tube exposures was 49.3 ± 20.9 vs. 60.9 ± 14.3 for the control group (p=.032). Number of previous surgeries in the study group was 3.6 ± 1.5 vs. 1.7 ± 2.1 for the control group (p=.001). Number of previous surgeries with a conjunctival incision was 2.5 ± 1.1 in the tube exposure group and 0.6 ± 0.6 in the control group (p<.001). The number of topical medications after surgery was 3.0 ± 1.9 in the study group and 1.7 ± 2.1 in the control group (p=.038).

Conclusions: This study suggests that a higher number of previous surgeries and postoperative topical medications place patients with a GDD at risk of having exposure of the draining tube.

Keywords: 765 wound healing • 621 ocular irritants • 474 conjunctiva  

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.