March 2012
Volume 53, Issue 14
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   March 2012
Glaucoma Drainage Device Surgery After Previous Cyclodestructive Procedures: A Safe Approach?
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Stergiani Gaki
    Dept of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
  • André Rosentreter
    Dept of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
  • Alexandra Lappas
    Dept of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
  • Claus Cursiefen
    Dept of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
  • Thomas S. Dietlein
    Dept of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Stergiani Gaki, None; André Rosentreter, None; Alexandra Lappas, None; Claus Cursiefen, None; Thomas S. Dietlein, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science March 2012, Vol.53, 3720. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Stergiani Gaki, André Rosentreter, Alexandra Lappas, Claus Cursiefen, Thomas S. Dietlein; Glaucoma Drainage Device Surgery After Previous Cyclodestructive Procedures: A Safe Approach?. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012;53(14):3720.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To investigate if previous cyclodestructive (e.g. cyclophotocoagulation and cyclocryodestruction) procedures have any influence on the general outcome and pressure level after glaucoma drainage device (GDD) surgery.

Methods: : Retrospective analysis of 110 consecutive patients who had undergone glaucoma drainage device (Baerveldt 250 mm2 & 350 mm2 implant, AMO, USA) surgery between March 2006 and January 2010 in our departement and had a follow-up of 3 or more months. The patients were divided into patients with previous cyclodestructive surgery before GDD surgery (I; 47 patients) and patients without previous cyclodestructive surgery before (II; 64 patients). Intraocular pressure (IOP), medication score, best corrected visual acuity and surgical treatments were recorded before and after drainage device implantation.

Results: : Patients of group I had a mean preoperative IOP of 32.1 mmHg and a mean medication score of 4.8; patients of group II had a mean preoperative IOP of 29.3 mmHg (p = 0.16) and a mean medication score of 4.9 (p = 0.85). All patients who developed suprachoroidal hemorrhage (six cases) belonged to group I (6/47 = 12.8 %), no patient of group II (0/63 = 0 %) developed suprachoroidal hemorrhage (p = 0.003). Twelve patients developed late-onset (> 6 weeks after GDD surgery) hypotony, nine of them belonging to group I (9/47 = 19.1 %) and three of them belonging to group II (3/63 = 4.8 %) (p = 0.02).

Conclusions: : Although selection bias owing to retrospective study design should be considered, a history of previous cyclodestructive procedures before GDD surgery seems to be a risk factor for suprachoroidal hemorrhage and for late-onset postoperative hypotony.

Keywords: clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: outcomes/complications • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: risk factor assessment 
×
×

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.

×