Shunt revision versus additional tube shunt implantation after failed tube shunt surgery in refractory glaucoma

Avanee A. Shah, Darrell WuDunn, Louis Cantor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

54 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare tube shunt revision with additional tube shunt after failed tube shunt surgery. METHODS: We identified 281 patients who underwent a primary tube shunt procedure from 1985 to 1998 at Indiana University and reviewed 33 eyes of 33 patients that had failed and required further surgery. Shunt revision was performed in 12, whereas an additional shunt was placed in 21 eyes. Intraocular pressure, antiglaucoma medications, visual acuity, and complications were noted. Success was defined as at least a 25% reduction in intraocular pressure that was deemed clinically adequate. Qualified success was defined as a 25% intraocular pressure reduction but with additional medications or a significant reduction in medications with stable intraocular pressure for preoperative intraocular pressure less than 21 mm Hg. RESULTS: Preoperative intraocular pressures (mean ± 95% confidence interval) for the revision and additional tube groups were 28.8 ± 5.8 mm Hg and 29.8 ± 2.7 mm Hg (P = .73), with an average follow-up period of 25.2 months (range, 3 to 108 months) and 34.8 months (range, 6 to 84 months), respectively. Final mean intraocular pressure was 25.3 ± 6.7 mm Hg for the revision group and 17.7 ± 3.4 mm Hg for the additional tube group (P = .037). Forty-two percent in the revision group versus 62% in the additional tube group achieved at least a qualified success (P = .30, Fisher exact test). Corneal edema was a common complication, especially in the additional tube group. Limitations of this study include the small sample sizes and the uneven distribution of neovascular glaucoma between the two groups (six of 12 in the revision group vs two of 21 in the additional tube group; P = .015, Fisher exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Our series showed that after failed tube shunt surgery, an additional tube shunt offers better intraocular pressure control than revision by excision of an encapsulated bleb. Copyright (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)455-460
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume129
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2000

Fingerprint

Intraocular Pressure
Glaucoma
Neovascular Glaucoma
Corneal Edema
Blister
Sample Size
Visual Acuity
Confidence Intervals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Shunt revision versus additional tube shunt implantation after failed tube shunt surgery in refractory glaucoma. / Shah, Avanee A.; WuDunn, Darrell; Cantor, Louis.

In: American Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 129, No. 4, 04.2000, p. 455-460.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{aebe318d597e4d119aa2455bc04b92ed,
title = "Shunt revision versus additional tube shunt implantation after failed tube shunt surgery in refractory glaucoma",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To compare tube shunt revision with additional tube shunt after failed tube shunt surgery. METHODS: We identified 281 patients who underwent a primary tube shunt procedure from 1985 to 1998 at Indiana University and reviewed 33 eyes of 33 patients that had failed and required further surgery. Shunt revision was performed in 12, whereas an additional shunt was placed in 21 eyes. Intraocular pressure, antiglaucoma medications, visual acuity, and complications were noted. Success was defined as at least a 25{\%} reduction in intraocular pressure that was deemed clinically adequate. Qualified success was defined as a 25{\%} intraocular pressure reduction but with additional medications or a significant reduction in medications with stable intraocular pressure for preoperative intraocular pressure less than 21 mm Hg. RESULTS: Preoperative intraocular pressures (mean ± 95{\%} confidence interval) for the revision and additional tube groups were 28.8 ± 5.8 mm Hg and 29.8 ± 2.7 mm Hg (P = .73), with an average follow-up period of 25.2 months (range, 3 to 108 months) and 34.8 months (range, 6 to 84 months), respectively. Final mean intraocular pressure was 25.3 ± 6.7 mm Hg for the revision group and 17.7 ± 3.4 mm Hg for the additional tube group (P = .037). Forty-two percent in the revision group versus 62{\%} in the additional tube group achieved at least a qualified success (P = .30, Fisher exact test). Corneal edema was a common complication, especially in the additional tube group. Limitations of this study include the small sample sizes and the uneven distribution of neovascular glaucoma between the two groups (six of 12 in the revision group vs two of 21 in the additional tube group; P = .015, Fisher exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Our series showed that after failed tube shunt surgery, an additional tube shunt offers better intraocular pressure control than revision by excision of an encapsulated bleb. Copyright (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.",
author = "Shah, {Avanee A.} and Darrell WuDunn and Louis Cantor",
year = "2000",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/S0002-9394(99)00410-9",
language = "English",
volume = "129",
pages = "455--460",
journal = "American Journal of Ophthalmology",
issn = "0002-9394",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shunt revision versus additional tube shunt implantation after failed tube shunt surgery in refractory glaucoma

AU - Shah, Avanee A.

AU - WuDunn, Darrell

AU - Cantor, Louis

PY - 2000/4

Y1 - 2000/4

N2 - PURPOSE: To compare tube shunt revision with additional tube shunt after failed tube shunt surgery. METHODS: We identified 281 patients who underwent a primary tube shunt procedure from 1985 to 1998 at Indiana University and reviewed 33 eyes of 33 patients that had failed and required further surgery. Shunt revision was performed in 12, whereas an additional shunt was placed in 21 eyes. Intraocular pressure, antiglaucoma medications, visual acuity, and complications were noted. Success was defined as at least a 25% reduction in intraocular pressure that was deemed clinically adequate. Qualified success was defined as a 25% intraocular pressure reduction but with additional medications or a significant reduction in medications with stable intraocular pressure for preoperative intraocular pressure less than 21 mm Hg. RESULTS: Preoperative intraocular pressures (mean ± 95% confidence interval) for the revision and additional tube groups were 28.8 ± 5.8 mm Hg and 29.8 ± 2.7 mm Hg (P = .73), with an average follow-up period of 25.2 months (range, 3 to 108 months) and 34.8 months (range, 6 to 84 months), respectively. Final mean intraocular pressure was 25.3 ± 6.7 mm Hg for the revision group and 17.7 ± 3.4 mm Hg for the additional tube group (P = .037). Forty-two percent in the revision group versus 62% in the additional tube group achieved at least a qualified success (P = .30, Fisher exact test). Corneal edema was a common complication, especially in the additional tube group. Limitations of this study include the small sample sizes and the uneven distribution of neovascular glaucoma between the two groups (six of 12 in the revision group vs two of 21 in the additional tube group; P = .015, Fisher exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Our series showed that after failed tube shunt surgery, an additional tube shunt offers better intraocular pressure control than revision by excision of an encapsulated bleb. Copyright (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.

AB - PURPOSE: To compare tube shunt revision with additional tube shunt after failed tube shunt surgery. METHODS: We identified 281 patients who underwent a primary tube shunt procedure from 1985 to 1998 at Indiana University and reviewed 33 eyes of 33 patients that had failed and required further surgery. Shunt revision was performed in 12, whereas an additional shunt was placed in 21 eyes. Intraocular pressure, antiglaucoma medications, visual acuity, and complications were noted. Success was defined as at least a 25% reduction in intraocular pressure that was deemed clinically adequate. Qualified success was defined as a 25% intraocular pressure reduction but with additional medications or a significant reduction in medications with stable intraocular pressure for preoperative intraocular pressure less than 21 mm Hg. RESULTS: Preoperative intraocular pressures (mean ± 95% confidence interval) for the revision and additional tube groups were 28.8 ± 5.8 mm Hg and 29.8 ± 2.7 mm Hg (P = .73), with an average follow-up period of 25.2 months (range, 3 to 108 months) and 34.8 months (range, 6 to 84 months), respectively. Final mean intraocular pressure was 25.3 ± 6.7 mm Hg for the revision group and 17.7 ± 3.4 mm Hg for the additional tube group (P = .037). Forty-two percent in the revision group versus 62% in the additional tube group achieved at least a qualified success (P = .30, Fisher exact test). Corneal edema was a common complication, especially in the additional tube group. Limitations of this study include the small sample sizes and the uneven distribution of neovascular glaucoma between the two groups (six of 12 in the revision group vs two of 21 in the additional tube group; P = .015, Fisher exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Our series showed that after failed tube shunt surgery, an additional tube shunt offers better intraocular pressure control than revision by excision of an encapsulated bleb. Copyright (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034066261&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034066261&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0002-9394(99)00410-9

DO - 10.1016/S0002-9394(99)00410-9

M3 - Article

C2 - 10764852

AN - SCOPUS:0034066261

VL - 129

SP - 455

EP - 460

JO - American Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - American Journal of Ophthalmology

SN - 0002-9394

IS - 4

ER -