Sie können Operatoren mit Ihrer Suchanfrage kombinieren, um diese noch präziser einzugrenzen. Klicken Sie auf den Suchoperator, um eine Erklärung seiner Funktionsweise anzuzeigen.
Findet Dokumente, in denen beide Begriffe in beliebiger Reihenfolge innerhalb von maximal n Worten zueinander stehen. Empfehlung: Wählen Sie zwischen 15 und 30 als maximale Wortanzahl (z.B. NEAR(hybrid, antrieb, 20)).
Findet Dokumente, in denen der Begriff in Wortvarianten vorkommt, wobei diese VOR, HINTER oder VOR und HINTER dem Suchbegriff anschließen können (z.B., leichtbau*, *leichtbau, *leichtbau*).
This study aimed to evaluate the rate of corneal graft failure in eyes with glaucoma drainage device (GDD) placed in the anterior chamber (AC) versus the ciliary sulcus (CS).
Methods
This was a retrospective chart review of eyes with coexisting corneal transplant and GDD between January 2014 and December 2021 at an academic medical center. The primary outcome was incidence of corneal transplant failure. Groups were compared with logistic regression modeling utilizing generalized estimating equations with an unstructured correlation to account for patients with two eyes included. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence limits were determined for the primary outcome. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to demonstrate the time to failure.
Results
Among 58 eyes, the graft failure rate for GDDs placed in the AC versus CS was 42.5% and 10.5%, respectively (p = 0.05). Male patients had higher odds of failure, OR 3.5 (95% CI 1.1, 10.4, p = 0.03). Maximum intraocular pressure, topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitor use, and type of corneal graft were not significantly associated with failure. The Kaplan–Meier survival curve demonstrated higher corneal transplant failure probabilities for eyes with GDD in the AC versus CS (p = 0.06). GDD location, after adjusting for sex, was not significantly associated with failure, OR 3.0 (95% CI 0.8, 11.6, p = 0.10).
Conclusions
Corneal transplant failure rates were four times higher in eyes with GDDs in the AC compared to the CS, but the difference was not statistically significant. Further studies with larger sample sizes and follow-up are needed to fully explore differences in failure rates by GDD placement.
Karen L. Christopher and Cara E. Capitena Young are joint corresponding/senior authors. The idea and creation of this project was made equally between them as were all parts of this manuscript including data collection, manuscript preparation, and editing.
Prior Presentation: An earlier version of some of this data was presented at the Women in Ophthalmology Summer Symposium 2022 in Monterey, CA, USA.
Key Summary Points
Recent studies showed better corneal endothelial profiles when a glaucoma drainage device (GDD) is placed in the ciliary sulcus (CS) versus the anterior chamber (AC); despite this, most GDDs are still placed in the AC. Clinical outcomes and benefits are not well studied.
There is limited data on clinical corneal outcomes for eyes with concomitant corneal transplants and glaucoma drainage devices.
Our study is the first to evaluate the incidence of corneal transplant failure based on GDD placement.
Corneal transplant failure rates were four times higher in eyes with GDDs in the AC compared to the CS, but the difference was not statistically significant.
Further studies with larger sample sizes and follow-up are needed to fully explore the differences in failure rates by GDD location.
Introduction
The management of glaucoma is centered on the lowering of intraocular pressure (IOP). While medications and laser treatment are helpful in most patients, those with refractory glaucoma often require surgical intervention. In the last two decades, surgical options available for the treatment of glaucoma have expanded immensely. Still, most studies agree that trabeculectomy and placement of glaucoma drainage devices (GDD), or tube shunts, remain the most effective surgical options for IOP lowering [1]. These traditional filtering procedures carry high rates of intraoperative and postsurgical complications including corneal decompensation, infection, hypotony, and failure [1‐3]. A survey of surgeon preference in 2017 showed increasing use of and preference for GDD placement over trabeculectomy [4]. Additionally, the indications for GDD placement are broader than trabeculectomy. It is often the preferred and/or primary surgical treatment for secondary glaucoma.
Anzeige
The rate of corneal edema postoperatively has been shown to be higher with tubes than with trabeculectomy [2]. At 5 years, one large study documented a 17% incidence of persistent corneal edema in patients with a GDD [2, 5] while other studies have documented incidence of corneal complications between 8% and 29% [3]. Corneal transplantation procedures can also cause glaucoma which may require GDD placement. The incidence of secondary glaucoma after penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) are 36% and 27%, respectively [6, 7]. Therefore, tube shunts often coexist in eyes with corneal grafts.
Prior studies have demonstrated a higher rate of corneal graft failure in eyes with glaucoma drainage devices [8‐11]. Incidence of PKP failure in the setting of GDDs has been reported as 30–70% at 18 months to 2 years [8, 9, 11]. Incidence of DSAEK failure or dislocation in eyes with previous glaucoma surgery has been reported at 26–37% at 6 months to 3 years, respectively [8, 9, 11, 12]. Though the exact mechanism of corneal decompensation is unknown, it is hypothesized to be a combination of mechanical tube contact, aqueous humor flow pattern changes, and chronic inflammatory reaction secondary to foreign material [13].
Surgeons may naturally opt to place a GDD in the ciliary sulcus (CS) or pars plana to ensure the tube is physically further from the corneal endothelium in an attempt to protect endothelial cells [14]. Recent studies show smaller decreases in endothelial cell density for GDDs placed in the CS compared to GDDs placed in the anterior chamber (AC) [15, 16]. Thus far, studies that publish differences in corneal endothelial profile after GDD placement in the AC versus the CS are limited by small sample sizes ranging from 24 to 38 eyes [15, 16]. Further, to our knowledge, there are no existing reports comparing corneal graft failure after GDD placement in the AC versus the CS. Our study aims to fill the existing gap. We hypothesize that rates of corneal transplant failure in eyes with GDDs placed in the AC will be greater than those with GDDs placed in the CS.
Methods
This was a retrospective chart review which was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB #19-2710). Given its retrospective nature, participants were not asked to sign a consent form. This study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and its later amendments. Eyes with a history of both corneal transplant (PKP, Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK), DSAEK) and GDD placement (Ahmed glaucoma valve (New World Medical, Inc., Rancho Cucamonga, CA, USA), Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant (Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA), or Molteno3 glaucoma drainage device (Nova Eye Medical, Inc., Adelaide, Australia)) either in the AC or CS were eligible for this study. Participants seen at the University of Colorado Sue Anschutz-Rodgers Eye Center between January 2014 and December 2021 were identified. GDD and corneal transplant procedures were either performed at the University of Colorado or at other private practices in the area. All included patients were followed postoperatively at the University of Colorado. The primary outcome was the incidence of corneal transplant failure. Corneal transplant failure was defined as the need for a repeat grafting procedure or evidence of clinical graft failure as determined by a cornea specialist. GDDs were placed in the AC or CS on the basis of surgeon preference.
Anzeige
Patients aged 11–99 years with a history of both corneal transplantation procedure and GDD placement were included. Demographic data as well as surgical dates, type of GDD, lens status at the time of GDD placement, and type of glaucoma were collected. Date of initial corneal transplant, type of graft, indication for corneal transplant, occurrence and date of graft failure, and use of topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors at the time of initial corneal graft failure were also collected. Maximum IOP was collected and follow-up time was calculated from the date that both a GDD and a corneal graft were present in the eye to the most recent follow-up clinic visit or to date of corneal graft failure, whichever occurred first. The maximum IOP was measured using Goldmann applanation tonometry in all cases unless adequate quality measurements were unable to be obtained because of mire distortion, in which case rebound tonometry with iCare was employed (iCare World, Finland).
Exclusion criteria were patients with less than 2 months documented follow-up from either GDD or corneal transplantation, pars plana placement of GDD, unknown or undocumented location of GDD, cases where the tube was moved from one location to another, tube trimming after corneal transplant, presence of other anterior chamber prostheses or implants, patients with XEN gel stent (AbbVie Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) or EX-PRESS glaucoma filtration device (Alcon Laboratories Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA), limbal stem cell deficiency, and corneal graft failure without a repeat corneal graft prior to GDD placement. Patients with corneal transplantation before the age of 13 years were also excluded because of differences in graft failure rates in younger age groups [17].
Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between the AC and CS groups with basic frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Summary measures for continuous variables were medians, means and standard deviations. Statistical comparisons between the two groups utilized logistic regression with estimating equations and an unstructured correlation to account for some patients having two eyes included in the study. Similar statistics were used to compare eyes that resulted in corneal transplant failure versus those that did not fail. Statistical comparisons that had zero cell sizes were not calculated. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to demonstrate corneal transplant failure over time. The logrank test was used to compare survival curves. Since the curves were not proportional over time and the follow-up time was similar between the AC and CS groups, the primary measure of association was the odds ratio and 95% confidence limits. Multivariable analysis with corneal transplant failure as the outcome included variables that were significantly associated with failure in univariate analysis. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted in SAS version 9.4 (Cary, North Carolina).
Results
Of the 156 eyes reviewed, 58 eyes of 56 patients met inclusion criteria for the study. Thirty-nine (67.8%) GDDs were placed in the AC and 19 (32.2%) were placed in the CS. Demographic data is presented in Table 1. There was no statistically significant differences in sex, race/ethnicity, age, laterality, type of GDD, type of corneal graft, indications for corneal transplant, type of glaucoma, topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitor use at the time of corneal transplant failure, follow-up time, or maximum IOP after corneal transplant between the AC and CS groups (Table 1). Eyes with GDDs placed in the CS had a better mean and median visual acuity (mean logMAR 1.07, median logMAR 0.80 (0.18–2.7)) compared to GDDs placed in the AC (mean logMAR 1.45, median logMAR 1.35 (0–3.0)), but this difference was not significant, p = 0.27. Twenty-nine (50.0%) GDDs were placed before corneal transplant, 26 (44.8%) were placed after corneal transplant, and 3 (5.2%) were placed at the time of corneal transplant. Although not statistically significant, GDD placement in the anterior chamber was more commonly performed among male patients (60.0%) whereas CS placement was more common for female patients (63.2%), p = 0.12.
Table 1
Characteristics of eyes by glaucoma drainage devices placed in the anterior chamber and the ciliary sulcus
AC
n = 39
CS
n = 19
p value
Sex
Male
24 (61.5%)
7 (36.8%)
0.10
Female
15 (38.5%)
12 (63.2%)
Race/ethnicity
White
34 (87.2%)
16 (88.9%)
0.71
African-American
1 (2.6%)
1 (5.6%)
Hispanic
4 (10.3%)
1 (5.6%)
Age (years)
n = 36
n = 17
Mean (SD)
62.9 (18.0)
59.6 (18.9)
0.67
Median (range)
67.0 (18–89)
65.0 (11–78)
Laterality
Left
21 (53.8%)
7 (36.8%)
0.26
Right
18 (46.2%)
12 (63.2%)
GDD type
Ahmed
22 (56.4%)
16 (84.2%)
0.55
Baerveldt
12 (30.8%)
3 (15.8%)
Unknown*
5 (12.8%)
0 (0%)
Type of graft
DSAEK/DSEK/DMEK
22 (56.4%)
9 (47.4%)
0.70
Penetrating keratoplasty
17 (43.6%)
10 (52.6%)
Lens status
Anterior chamber IOL
7 (18.0%)
1 (5.3%)
Not calculable
Posterior chamber IOL
20 (51.3%)
16 (84.2%)
Phakic
8 (20.5%)
1 (5.3%)
Aphakic
0 (0%)
1 (5.3%)
Unknown
4 (10.3%)
0 (0%)
Indications for transplant
Fuchs
7 (18.0%)
5 (26.3%)
0.28
Keratoconus
2 (5.1%)
3 (15.8%)
Pseudophakic bullous keratopathy
15 (38.5%)
3 (15.8%)
Infection
5 (12.8%)
5 (26.3%)
Other
3 (7.7%)
3 (15.8%)
Unknown*
7 (18.0%)
0 (0%)
Type of glaucoma
Primary open angle glaucoma
15 (38.5%)
5 (26.3%)
Not calculable
Ocular hypertension
2 (5.1%)
3 (15.8%)
Secondary/other
12 (30.8%)
11 (57.9%)
Pseudoexfoliative glaucoma
6 (15.4%)
0 (0%)
Traumatic/steroid induced/combined
4 (10.3%)
0 (0%)
Maximum IOP
Mean (SD)
22.5 (8.4)
23.4 (7.4)
0.54
Median (range)
21.0 (9–46)
20.0 (13–36)
Carbonic anhydrase inhibitor at time of first transplant
*Excluded for statistical comparison. Visual acuity was obtained at the most recent follow-up visit and converted into logMAR visual acuity
The overall corneal transplant failure rate was 32.2%. The corneal transplant failure rate for GDDs placed in the AC was 42.5% versus 10.5% for GDDs placed in the CS (p = 0.05). Between the corneal grafts that failed versus the corneal grafts that did not fail (Table 2), there were no statistically significant differences in race/ethnicity, age, laterality, GDD type, type of corneal graft, indications for corneal transplant, type of glaucoma, maximum IOP, or topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitor use at the time of corneal graft failure. Failure rates were significantly different by sex (male 48.4% vs. female 14.8%, p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the follow-up time from when GDD and corneal transplant were both present between the two groups (30.7 months vs. 40.1 months, p = 0.25).
Table 2
Rates of failure by select ocular characteristics
Failed corneal transplants
Corneal transplants that did not fail
p value
Overall
19 (32.8%)
39 (67.2%)
Sex
Male
15 (48.4%)
16 (51.6%)
0.02
Female
4 (14.8%)
23 (85.2%)
Race/ethnicity
White
18 (36.0%)
32 (64.0%)
0.20
African-American*
0 (0%)
2 (100%)
Hispanic*
1 (20.0%)
4 (80.0%)
Age (years)
n = 18
n = 35
Mean (SD)
63.6 (16.7)
61.0 (19.1)
0.65
Median (range)
66.0 (18–83)
67.0 (11–89)
Laterality
Left
9 (32.1%)
19 (67.9%)
0.29
Right
10 (33.3%)
20 (66.7%)
GDD location
AC
16 (41.0%)
23 (59.0%)
0.05
CS
3 (15.8%)
16 (84.2%)
GDD type
Ahmed
9 (23.7%)
29 (76.3%)
0.36
Baerveldt
6 (40.0%)
9 (60.0%)
Unknown**
4 (80.0%)
1 (20.0%)
Type of graft
DSAEK/DSEK/DMEK
13 (41.9%)
18 (58.1%)
0.14
Penetrating keratoplasty
6 (22.2%)
21 (77.8%)
Lens status
Anterior chamber IOL
2 (25.0%)
6 (75.0%)
Not calculable
Posterior chamber IOL
11 (30.6%)
25 (69.4%)
Phakic
4 (44.4%)
5 (55.6%)
Aphakic
1 (100%)
0 (0%)
Unknown
1 (25.0%)
3 (75.0%)
Follow-up time (months)
Mean (SD)
30.5 (33.2)
50.6 (32.2)
0.04
Median (range)
15.5 (0.6–116)
52.3 (5.4–157)
Indications for transplant
Fuchs
6 (50.0%)
6 (50.0%)
0.61
Keratoconus
1 (20.0%)
4 (80.0%)
Pseudophakic bullous keratopathy
6 (33.3%)
12 (66.7%)
Infection
5 (50.0%)
5 (50.0%)
Other*
0 (0%)
6 (100%)
Unknown*
1 (14.3%)
6 (85.7%)
Type of glaucoma
Primary open angle glaucoma
7 (35.0%)
13 (65.0%)
0.99
Ocular hypertension
2 (40.0%)
3 (60.0%)
Secondary/other
7 (30.4%)
16 (69.6%)
Pseudoexfoliative glaucoma
2 (33.3%)
4 (66.7%)
Traumatic/steroid induced/combined
1 (25.0%)
3 (75.0%)
Maximum intraocular pressure
Mean (SD)
22.9 (9.6)
22.8 (7.4)
0.96
Median (range)
20.0 (11–42)
21.0 (9–46)
Carbonic anhydrase inhibitor at time of first transplant
The Kaplan–Meier curve demonstrated an increased probability of transplant failure over time for the AC group compared to the CS group (Fig. 1), although this difference was not significant (logrank test p = 0.06). In univariate analysis, location of transplant was of borderline significance as a predictor for corneal transplant failure with an OR of 3.8 (95% CI 1.0, 15.0, p = 0.05). Male sex did have a higher odds of failure, OR 3.5 (95% CI 1.1, 10.4, p = 0.03). After adjusting for sex, location was not significantly associated with failure, OR 3.0 (95% CI 0.8, 11.6, p = 0.10).
Fig. 1
Kaplan–Meier plot of time (months) to transplant failure for glaucoma drainage devices located in the anterior chamber (continues line) versus ciliary sulcus (dashed line). Number of eyes at risk for each time point are presented on the x-axis. Failure probability is on the y-axis. Censored observations are indicated by a plus symbol. GDD glaucoma drainage device
In this study, the rate of corneal graft failure when GDDs were placed in the AC was four times higher than when GDDs were placed in the CS. However, this difference was of borderline significance in univariate analysis and not significant in multivariable analysis after adjusting for sex.
It is well known that GDDs cause corneal endothelial cell loss which is especially dangerous in eyes at high risk of corneal decompensation such as those with corneal grafts [3]. The precise mechanism of endothelial cell loss after GDD implant surgery is not fully understood but is thought to be multifactorial. Recent studies have demonstrated significantly higher rates of mean monthly endothelial cell density (ECD) loss for eyes with GDDs placed in the AC versus the CS [16, 18]. One study showed a mean monthly ECD loss of 17.47 ± 11.50 cells/mm2 vs. 6.40 ± 7.69 cells/mm2 in the CS GDD group, and another study showed mean monthly ECD loss as 29.3 ± 29.7 cells/mm2 in the AC GDD group versus 15.3 ± 20.7 cells/mm2 in the CS GDD group [16, 18]. These studies investigate the ECD in native corneas, not rates of endothelial cell loss or graft failure for eyes with corneal grafts.
Anzeige
Many surgeons opt to place GDDs in the pars plana or CS in an effort to have the GDD further away from the endothelium, especially for those patients with a shallow AC, presence of anterior synechiae, or patients deemed to be at higher risk of corneal decompensation. However, a prior study comparing pars plana and AC GDD placement did not find lower rates of graft dislocation or failure for pars plana GDDs [10]. This suggests that the mechanism of damage to the corneal endothelium may be more complex than just GDD location.
Since pars plana placement requires vitrectomy, CS placement is an alternative option that can be used for pseudophakic and some aphakic eyes. Potential complications of CS tubes include chronic inflammation, hemorrhage, and pigment dispersion due to the close contact between the tube and iris or ciliary body. However, a 2022 retrospective study showed no signs of intraocular inflammation, synechiae formation, or pigment dispersion during a mean 7.9-month follow-up period after GDD placement in the CS [19]. A 2021 survey of the American Glaucoma Society membership showed 61% of respondents agreed that evidence suggests the superiority of CS tube placement over the AC and yet still 90% of the respondents placed GDDs in the AC for pseudophakic eyes [20]. Similarly, while there was a trend towards more frequent CS placement in pseudophakic eyes in more recent years, our study included 21 eyes with posterior chamber IOLs that were likely candidates for CS GDD but received an AC tube instead.
Male sex was significantly associated with higher rates of corneal graft failure in this study. The data around sex as a significant risk factor for graft failure is controversial as some studies have found sex to not be associated with failure, while other studies have found male sex or female sex to be a significant risk factor [21‐24]. The mechanism of sex as a graft failure risk factor remains unclear. Other risk factors for transplant failure may differ by sex within our study population which are not accounted for in our analysis, such as differences in smoking, history of uveitis, and diabetes [25‐27].
While some corneal specialists may prefer PKP over DSAEK in patients with GDDs, more recent studies show that DSAEK is also a viable option that improves vision in eyes with a GDD [28]. In the present study, type of corneal transplant and indication for corneal transplant were not significantly associated with graft failure rates. Additionally, although the use of carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAI) can disrupt the pump function of the carbonic anhydrases in the corneal endothelium, several studies have shown no difference in endothelial cell density with the use of CAIs in normal corneas [29‐31]. Mechanical damage from elevated IOP is thought to contribute to endothelial cell loss in patients with glaucoma with significant endothelial cell loss in open angle glaucoma and no significant loss in normal tension glaucoma [32]. In our study, neither maximum IOP nor use of CAIs was found to be a significant factor in rates of corneal transplant failure.
Anzeige
This retrospective study has several limitations. Because corneal transplant failure rates progressively increase with each year out from transplant surgery [33], long-term follow-up to determine a good estimate of failure probability is needed. Mean follow-up time was similar between both AC and CS GDDs and between eyes in which the transplant failed and those that did not. While the Kaplan–Meier curve starts to diverge in probability of failure between the two groups at around 2 years, the difference becomes more pronounced with longer follow-up. The average follow-up time for each group was longer than 2 years (38.4 months AC, 34.4 months CS, 30.7 months failed transplants, and 40.1 months transplants which did not fail), the numbers of eyes included at each timepoint beyond this threshold was too small to draw meaningful conclusions. Repeat analysis after longer follow-up time will be important to expand upon this research. Other limitations include lack of quantifiable measures of corneal endothelial cell size and density. However, while specifics of corneal donor tissue are not available for evaluation, all donor corneas met criteria for transplantation with adequate endothelial cell counts as determined by the corneal surgeon performing the case. Finally, our study cohort included 19 cases of CS GDD placement which varied in type of glaucoma, corneal pathology, and other characteristics listed in Table 1. These diverse cases at a small sample size may make it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions.
Conclusion
This retrospective study is the first to assess the rates of corneal graft failure between eyes with GDDs placed in the ciliary sulcus and the anterior chamber. The rate of graft failure was four times higher in AC tubes; however, the odds ratio for graft failure was not significantly different between the groups, and the findings were of borderline significance, likely because of the small sample size. While the true mechanism of endothelial damage and failure is likely more complex than just tube location, it may be a contributing factor. Thus placement of GDDs in the ciliary sulcus should be considered in eyes with a prior corneal graft in an attempt to minimize risk of graft failure; however, additional research with larger sample size and longer follow-up times will be important to further evaluate corneal graft failure differences between these groups.
Acknowledgements
We thank the participants in the study.
Medical Writing/Editorial Assistance
No assistance was used for the writing of this article.
Anzeige
Declarations
Conflict of Interest
Emmeline J. Kim has nothing to disclose. Monica K. Ertel has nothing to disclose. Jennifer L. Patnaik has nothing to disclose. Maxwell Mayeda has nothing to disclose. Deidre St. Peter has nothing to disclose. Galia A. Deitz has nothing to disclose. Jeffrey R. Soohoo has nothing to disclose. Mina B. Pantcheva is an Editorial Board member of Ophthalmology and Therapy. Mina B. Pantcheva was not involved in the selection of peer reviewers for the manuscript nor any of the subsequent editorial decisions. Malik Y. Kahook and Leonard K. Seibold consult for New World Medical. Cara Capitena Young has nothing to disclose. Karen L. Christopher has nothing to disclose.
Ethical Approval
This retrospective chart review was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB #19-2710). Given its retrospective nature, participants were not asked to sign a consent form. This study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and its later amendments.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Incidence of Corneal Graft Failure with Glaucoma Drainage Device Placement in the Anterior Chamber Compared to the Ciliary Sulcus
Verfasst von
Emmeline J. Kim
Monica K. Ertel
Jennifer L. Patnaik
Maxwell Mayeda
Deidre St. Peter
Galia A. Deitz
Jeffrey R. SooHoo
Mina B. Pantcheva
Malik Y. Kahook
Leonard K. Seibold
Karen L. Christopher
Cara E. Capitena Young
Gedde SJ, Feuer WJ, Lim KS, et al. Treatment outcomes in the primary tube versus trabeculectomy study after 5 years of follow-up. Ophthalmology. 2022;129(12):1344–56.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Gedde SJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, Budenz DL, Feuer WJ, Schiffman JC. Postoperative complications in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) study during five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(5):804-14.e1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Hau S, Barton K. Corneal complications of glaucoma surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20(2):131–6.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Vinod K, Gedde SJ, Feuer WJ, et al. Practice preferences for glaucoma surgery: a survey of the American Glaucoma Society. J Glaucoma. 2017;26(8):687–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Wagner IV, Stewart MW, Dorairaj SK. Updates on the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2022;6(6):618–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Vajaranant TS, Price MO, Price FW, Gao W, Wilensky JT, Edward DP. Visual acuity and intraocular pressure after Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with and without preexisting glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(9):1644–50.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Yildirim N, Gursoy H, Sahin A, Ozer A, Colak E. Glaucoma after penetrating keratoplasty: incidence, risk factors, and management. J Ophthalmol. 2011;2011: 951294.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Hernstadt DJ, Chai C, Tan A, Manotosh R. Three-year outcomes of Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with pre-existing glaucoma drainage devices. Can J Ophthalmol. 2019;54(5):577–84.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Iverson SM, Spierer O, Papachristou GC, et al. Comparison of graft survival following penetrating keratoplasty and Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with a glaucoma drainage device. Int Ophthalmol. 2018;38(1):223–31.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Kang JJ, Rittterband DC, Lai K, Eisenberg RE, Liebmann JM, Seedor JA. Outcomes of descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with pars plana versus anterior chamber glaucoma drainage devices. Cornea. 2019;38(11):1364–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Kwon YH, Taylor JM, Hong S, et al. Long-term results of eyes with penetrating keratoplasty and glaucoma drainage tube implant. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(2):272–8.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Decroos FC, Delmonte DW, Chow JH, et al. Increased rates of Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) graft failure and dislocation in glaucomatous eyes with aqueous shunts. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2012;7(3):203–13.PubMed
13.
Vallabh NA, Kennedy S, Vinciguerra R, et al. Corneal endothelial cell loss in glaucoma and glaucoma surgery and the utility of management with Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). J Ophthalmol. 2022;2022:1315299.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Weiner A, Cohn AD, Balasubramaniam M, Weiner AJ. Glaucoma tube shunt implantation through the ciliary sulcus in pseudophakic eyes with high risk of corneal decompensation. J Glaucoma. 2010;19(6):405–11.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Godinho G, Barbosa-Breda J, Oliveira-Ferreira C, et al. Anterior chamber versus ciliary sulcus Ahmed glaucoma valve tube placement: longitudinal evaluation of corneal endothelial cell profiles. J Glaucoma. 2021;30(2):170–4.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Kim JY, Lee JS, Lee T, et al. Corneal endothelial cell changes and surgical results after Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation: ciliary sulcus versus anterior chamber tube placement. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):12986.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Lowe MT, Keane MC, Coster DJ, Williams KA. The outcome of corneal transplantation in infants, children, and adolescents. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(3):492–7.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zhang Q, Liu Y, Thanapaisal S, et al. The effect of tube location on corneal endothelial cells in patients with Ahmed glaucoma valve. Ophthalmology. 2021;128(2):218–26.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Arikan G, Akbulut B, Utine CA, et al. Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation with the tube placement in the ciliary sulcus: short-term results. Int Ophthalmol. 2022;42(3):969–80.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Yonamine S, Ton L, Rose-Nussbaumer J, et al. Survey of the American Glaucoma Society membership on current glaucoma drainage device placement and postoperative corticosteroid use. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:2305–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Sit M, Weisbrod DJ, Naor J, Slomovic AR. Corneal graft outcome study. Cornea. 2001;20(2):129–33.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Maguire MG, Stark WJ, Gottsch JD, et al. Risk factors for corneal graft failure and rejection in the collaborative corneal transplantation studies. Collaborative Corneal Transplantation Studies Research Group. Ophthalmology. 1994;101(9):1536–47.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Anshu A, Lim LS, Htoon HM, Tan DT. Postoperative risk factors influencing corneal graft survival in the Singapore Corneal Transplant Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151(3):442-8.e1.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Ing JJ, Ing HH, Nelson LR, Hodge DO, Bourne WM. Ten-year postoperative results of penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 1998;105(10):1855–65.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Price MO, Thompson RW Jr, Price FW Jr. Risk factors for various causes of failure in initial corneal grafts. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(8):1087–92.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Sugar A, Gal RL, Kollman C, et al. Factors associated with corneal graft survival in the cornea donor study. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(3):246–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Hennein L, Lambert NG, Chamberlain W, Hirabayashi K, Rose-Nussbaumer J, Schallhorn JM. Keratoplasty outcomes in patients with uveitis. Cornea. 2021;40(5):590–5.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Kang JJ, Ritterband DC, Atallah RT, Liebmann JM, Seedor JA. Clinical outcomes of Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with glaucoma drainage devices. J Glaucoma. 2019;28(7):601–5.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Nakano T, Inoue R, Kimura T, et al. Effects of brinzolamide, a topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, on corneal endothelial cells. Adv Ther. 2016;33(8):1452–9.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Kwon JW, Rand GM, Cho KJ, Gore PK, McCartney MD, Chuck RS. Association between corneal endothelial cell density and topical glaucoma medication use in an eye bank donor population. Cornea. 2016;35(12):1533–6.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Giasson CJ, Nguyen TQ, Boisjoly HM, Lesk MR, Amyot M, Charest M. Dorzolamide and corneal recovery from edema in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129(2):144–50.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Kang D, Kaur P, Singh K, Kumar D, Chopra R, Sehgal G. Evaluation and correlation of corneal endothelium parameters with the severity of primary glaucoma. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022;70(10):3540–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Purtskhvanidze K, Saeger M, Frimpong-Boateng A, Rüfer F, Roider J, Nölle B. Ten-year outcome of glaucoma drainage device surgery after penetrating keratoplasty. J Glaucoma. 2021;30(3):e108–13.CrossRefPubMed
Ob und wie stark können Infektionen mit dem Respiratorischen Synzytial-Virus kardiorespiratorische Probleme auch in der postakuten Phase verursachen? Eine Studie hat das untersucht.
Eine opportunistische Eileiterentfernung reduziert das Risiko für tubo-ovarielle Karzinome um 40 bis 80% – ohne kurzfristige Nachteile für die Ovarialfunktion. Die Europäische Gynäkologievereinigung rät Frauen ohne Kinderwunsch daher, solche Eingriffe zu nutzen.
Haben Menschen mit einer chronischen Niereninsuffizienz nachts systolische Blutdruckwerte über 110 mmHg, scheint dies die Nierenfunktion weiter zu verschlechtern. Ab 65 Jahren ist es nach Daten aus China aber genau umgekehrt.
Die Behandlung eines Typ-2-Diabetes mit oralem Semaglutid scheint sich auch auf eine bestehende Herzinsuffizienz günstig auszuwirken. Laut einer Sekundäranalyse der SOUL-Studie profitieren vor allem Patienten und Patientinnen mit erhaltener Auswurffraktion.
