A retrospective study of ten-year outcomes of glaucoma drainage device surgery in African patients.
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Trabeculectomy, a commonly performed glaucoma filtration surgery, is often necessary to lower intraocular pressure and maintain visual function. However, individuals of African descent have been shown to experience higher rates of trabeculectomy failure. This poses a persistent challenge for Ophthalmologists in the region, especially when managing unsuccessful surgeries and complex forms of secondary glaucoma. In such difficult-to-treat cases, where standard surgical methods have failed or are anticipated to fail, glaucoma drainage devices are frequently utilized. This review aims to assess the efficacy and safety of Glaucoma drainage device (GDD) surgery in African eyes with glaucoma Materials and methods: A retrospective review of clinical records of 283 African patients that had Glaucoma drainage device implantation surgery done from November 2014 to November2024 with at least 1 month follow up at Eye foundation Hospital Group. The data was retrieved from Electronic medical records (Indigo) and patients’ charts. The demographics, preoperative IOP (the highest IOP recorded before surgery and postoperative intraocular pressures at day 1, 1month to 120months, the number of glaucoma medications used preop and postop at the last clinic follow up visit, the preop visual acuity (snellen chart and converted to logMar) and at last clinic visit, IOP related surgeries, lasers done before and after GDD surgery and post-op complications were retrieved. All data were cross checked for accuracy, entered in proforma and were analyzed using commercially available statistical data management software-Epi-info version 3.5.1, 7.2.5. Continuous variables were illustrated in the form of mean ±SD and categorical variables were shown in the form of frequency and percent. Complete success is defined as intraocular pressure reduction of 20% or more in Preop intraocular pressure, Qualified success as intraocular pressure <21mmHg and <18mmHg with or without medication. Primary outcome measures were post op intraocular pressure, cumulative probability failure, visual acuity changes at 1 year, 3, 5, and 7 years. The secondary measures were the postop number of medications and complications. Result: Complete success was achieved in 84.5%, 78.0%, 94.1%, 100% at 1year, 3, 5 and 7years respectively. Qualified success was achieved in 78.6%, 86.0%, 82.4% and 66.7% at 1year, 3, 5, and 7 years respectively with IOP at <21mmHg. At IOP of <18mmHg qualified success was achieved in 72.6%, 82.0%,76.5% and 66.7% at 1 year, 3,5, and 7 years respectively. Complications occurred in 3.2%, which included macula edema, 1.8%, ptosis, exposed Glaucoma drainage device, dislocation of tube and encapsulated bleb, 1.1% each. Hypotony, choroidal effusion and branch retinal vein occlusion occurred in 0.7% of cases. Endophthalmitis occurred in 0.4% of cases. Conclusion: A glaucoma drainage device can safely and effectively manage refractory glaucoma, even over an extended period of time in Africans.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Flaxman SR, Bourne RR, Resnikoff S, et al. Global causes of blindness and distance vision impairment 1990–2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(12):e1221-e1234.
3. Kyari F, Abdull MM, Bastawrous A, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for blindness and visual impairment among adults in a rural Nigerian community: the Nigeria National Blindness and Visual Impairment Survey. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12):e008415.
4. Budenz DL, Barton K, Whiteside-de Vos J, et al. Prevalence of glaucoma in an urban West African population: the Tema Eye Survey. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013;131(5):651-658.
5. Rojananuangnit K, Jiaranaisilawong P, Rattanaphaithun O, Sathim W. Surgical outcomes of glaucoma drainage device implantation in refractory glaucoma patients in Thailand. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:4163-4178. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S393730.
6. Arora KS, Robin AL, Corcoran KJ, Corcoran SL, Ramulu PY. Use of various glaucoma surgeries and procedures in Medicare beneficiaries from 1994 to 2012. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(8):1615-1624. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.04.015.
7. Massote JA, Oliveira VDM, Cronemberger S. Glaucoma drainage devices. Rev Bras Oftalmol. 2022;81:e0041.
8. Pathak-Ray V. Primary implantation of glaucoma drainage device in secondary glaucoma: Comparison of Aurolab aqueous drainage implant versus Ahmed glaucoma valve. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2025;73(Suppl 2):S327-S333. doi:10.4103/IJO.IJO_2505_23.
9. Purtskhvanidze K, Saeger M, Treumer F, Roider J, Nölle B. Long-term results of glaucoma drainage device surgery. BMC Ophthalmol. 2019;19:14. doi:10.1186/s12886-019-1027-z.
10. Ang B, Lim BCH, Betzler BK, et al. Recent advancements in glaucoma surgery—a review. Bioengineering. 2023;10(9):1096. doi:10.3390/bioengineering10091096.
11. Arora KS, et al. Use of various glaucoma surgeries and procedures in Medicare beneficiaries from 1994 to 2012. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(8):1615-1624.
12. Hong CH, Arosemena A, Zurakowski D, Ayyala RS. Glaucoma drainage devices: a systematic literature review and current controversies. Surv Ophthalmol. 2005;50(1):48-60. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2004.10.006.
13. Gedde SJ, Singh K, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ. Tube versus trabeculectomy study group. The tube versus trabeculectomy study: interpretation of results and application to clinical practice. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2012;23:118–126.
14. Gedde SJ, Feuer WJ, Shi W, et al. Treatment outcomes in the Primary Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study after 1 year of follow-up. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(5):650-663. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.02.003.
15. Wong SH, Radell JE, Dangda S, et al. The effect of phacoemulsification on intraocular pressure in eyes with preexisting glaucoma drainage implants. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2021;4(4):350-357. doi:10.1016/j.ogla.2020.11.006.
16. Stallworth JY, Hekmatjah N, Yu Y, et al. Effect of lens status on the outcomes of glaucoma drainage device implantation. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2024;7(3):242-250. doi:10.1016/j.ogla.2024.01.004.
17. Sa HS, Kee C. Effect of temporal clear corneal phacoemulsification on intraocular pressure in eyes with prior Ahmed glaucoma valve insertion. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32:1011–1014.
18. Gujral S, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Caprioli J. Outcomes of small incision cataract surgery in eyes with preexisting Ahmed glaucoma valves. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140:911–913.
19. Ytteborg J, Dohlman CH. Corneal edema and intraocular pressure: II. Clinical results. Arch Ophthalmol. 1965;74(4):477–484. doi:10.1001/archopht.1965.00970040479008.
20. Díez-Ajenjo MA, Luque-Cobija MJ, Peris-Martínez C, et al. Refractive changes and visual quality in patients with corneal edema after cataract surgery. BMC Ophthalmol. 2022;22:242. doi:10.1186/s12886-022-02452-0.
21. Gedde SJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, et al. Postoperative complications in the Tube versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) study during five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153:804–814.
22. Erie JC, Baratz KH, Mahr MA, Johnson DH. Phacoemulsification in patients with Baerveldt tube shunts. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32(9):1489-1491.
23. Hille K, Moustafa B, Hille A, Ruprecht KW. Drainage devices in glaucoma surgery. Klinika Oczna. 2004;106(4/5):670-681.
24. Lloyd MA, Baerveldt G, Fellenbaum PS, et al. Intermediate-term results of a randomized clinical trial of the 350- versus 500-mm² Baerveldt implant. Ophthalmology. 1994;101(8):1456-1464. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(94)31152-3.
25. Heuer DK, Lloyd MA, Abrams DA, et al. Which is better? One or two? A randomized clinical trial of single-plate versus double-plate Molteno implantation for glaucomas in aphakia and pseudophakia. Ophthalmology. 1992;99(10):1512-1519. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(92)31772 5.
26. Ayyala RS, Zurakowski D, Monshizadeh R, et al. Comparison of double-plate Molteno and Ahmed glaucoma valve in patients with advanced uncontrolled glaucoma. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 2002;33:94-101.
27. Stein JD, McCoy AN, Asrani S, et al. Surgical management of hypotony owing to overfiltration in eyes receiving glaucoma drainage devices. J Glaucoma. 2009;18(8):638-641.
28. Levinson JD, Giangiacomo AL, Beck AD, et al. Glaucoma drainage devices: Risk of exposure and infection. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;160(3):516-521.e2. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2015.05.025.
29. Gedde SJ, Scott IU, Tabandeh H, et al. Late endophthalmitis associated with glaucoma drainage implants. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(7):1323-1327. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(01)00598-X.
30. Myers JS, Lamrani R, Hallaj S, et al. 10-Year clinical outcomes of tube shunt surgery at a tertiary care center. Am J Ophthalmol. 2023;253:132-141. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2023.04.001.
31. Law SK, Kornmann HL, Giaconi JA, et al. Early aqueous suppressant therapy on hypertensive phase following glaucoma drainage device procedure: A randomized prospective trial. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(3):248-257. doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000000131.
32. Tang M, Gill N, Tanna AP. Incidence and outcomes of hypertensive phase after glaucoma drainage device surgery. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2024;7(4):345-351. doi:10.1016/j.ogla.2024.03.006.
33. Fargione RA, Tansuebchueasai N, Lee R, Tai TYT. Etiology and management of the hypertensive phase in glaucoma drainage-device surgery. Surv Ophthalmol. 2019;64(2):217-224. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2018.09.006.
34. Omoti AE, Enock ME, Iyasele ET. Surgical management of primary open-angle glaucoma in Africans. Expert Rev Ophthalmol. 2010;5(1):95-107. doi:10.1586/eop.09.66.
35. Gessesse G. The Ahmed glaucoma valve in refractory glaucoma: Experiences in Southwest Ethiopia. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2015;25:267-272. doi:10.4314/ejhs.v25i3.10.
36. Kiage DO, Gradin D, Gichuhi S, Damji KF. Ahmed glaucoma valve implant: experience in East Africa. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2009;16(3):151-155. doi:10.4103/0974-9233.56230