March 2012
Volume 53, Issue 14
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   March 2012
Diplopia Following Glaucoma Drainage Implant Surgery
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Matthew E. Emanuel
    Ophthalmology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
  • Joshua D. Levinson
    Ophthalmology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
  • Annette Giangiacomo
    Ophthalmology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
  • Allen D. Beck
    Ophthalmology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Matthew E. Emanuel, None; Joshua D. Levinson, None; Annette Giangiacomo, None; Allen D. Beck, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  National Institutes of Heath Departmental Core grant EY06360 and Research to Prevent Blindness
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science March 2012, Vol.53, 3724. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Matthew E. Emanuel, Joshua D. Levinson, Annette Giangiacomo, Allen D. Beck; Diplopia Following Glaucoma Drainage Implant Surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012;53(14):3724.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: : To determine the frequency of new onset post-operative diplopia after glaucoma drainage implant surgery.

Methods: : A retrospective chart review of all patients receiving a glaucoma drainage implant at a single institution over a 10 year period. The primary outcome was new onset diplopia, with a secondary outcome of persistent diplopia lasting greater than six months.

Results: : Seven hundred sixty-six patients were found to have received a glaucoma drainage implant between January 2000 and December 2010. Sixty-three (8.4%) were documented to have experienced diplopia or documented to have strabismus. Of these, 27 (3.5%) were known to have new-onset diplopia for greater than 6 months: 11 (1.4%) were treated with prism glasses; 3 (0.4%) had or were recommended to have strabismus surgery; and 13 (1.7%) did not have documented intervention. Of the remaining 36 patients, 13 (1.7%) had short-term self-resolving diplopia, 13 (1.7%) had diplopia either predating glaucoma surgery or attributed to another cause, and 10 (1.3%) were either lost to follow-up prior to 6 months or did not have sufficient documentation available.Type of glaucoma drainage devices (GDD) among all patients with diplopia (n = 63) included: 32 (50.8%) Ahmed FP7 GDD, 6 (9.5%) Ahmed S2 GDD, 23 (36.5%) Baerveldt GDD, and 2 (3.1%) Ahmed GDD of unknown type. Furthermore, of the 27 patients with persistent diplopia, 15 (55.6%) had Ahmed FP7 GDD, 2 (7.4%) had Ahmed S2 GDD, and 10 (37.0%) had Baerveldt GDD.The most common types of strabismus associated with persistent diplopia or short-term self-resolving diplopia were either a pure vertical deviation or a vertical deviation with concomitant exotropia.

Conclusions: : Symptomatic diplopia after placement of a glaucoma drainage device is relatively common. Most patients have short term, self-limited diplopia or can be adequately treated with prism glasses. A small percentage of patients have refractory symptomatic diplopia persisting more than six months with very few requiring surgical intervention.

Keywords: clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: outcomes/complications • 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.