Purchase this article with an account.
Sayeeda Fatima, Aman Shukairy, Nika Priest-Allen, Chaesik Kim; Surgical Outcomes of the M4 versus the FP7 Ahmed Valve Implant in Refractory Glaucoma. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):6486.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To compare the postoperative outcomes of the M4 vs FP7 Ahmed valve glaucoma implant (AGV) in patients with refractory glaucoma at Kresge Eye Institute.
This is a single surgeon, retrospective study comparing surgical outcomes of the FP7 and M4 Ahmed valves in patients with refractory glaucoma treated with AGV at Kresge Eye Institute in Detroit, MI. Exclusion criteria included age < 18 years, previous AGV surgery, and follow up <2 months. Type of glaucoma, pre-op IOP and number of IOP drops, visual acuity, previous surgery, and concomitant cataract surgery were assessed. Intraocular pressures at postoperative day 1, month 1, month 2, month 4 and number of IOP drops after surgery were evaluated. Data was analyzed using unpaired T-test and Mann-Whitney tests.
Sixteen patients received the FP7 AGV from 2010-2014 and 11 received the M4 valve from 2014-present. Mean follow up was 1 year for the FP7 group and 4 months for the M4 group. NVG was the most prevalent glaucoma type in both groups. Mean pre-op IOP was 33 in the FP7 vs. 28 in the M4 group (p=0.20). Mean number of preop drops was 3.69 vs. 3.27 in the FP7 and M4 groups (p=0.13). Postoperatively there was no significant difference in mean number of drops (FP7 0.9 vs. M4 0.4, p=0.3), mean IOP at day 1 (FP7 9.1 vs. M4 8.7, p=0.86), month 1 (FP7 16.8 vs. M4 16.4, p=0.92) or month 2 (FP7 16.2 vs. M4 16.4, p=0.89). At month 4, mean IOP was 16.3 in the FP7 group vs. 15.0 in the M4 group (p=0.57).
Our study provides a direct comparative analysis of the FP7 vs. M4 Ahmed valves in the immediate post-op period. Results show both valves have similar outcomes in terms of both IOP reduction and reduction in number of IOP drops in the immediate post-operative period. The study is ongoing to compare long term efficacy and safety profiles.
This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only