Global Search

Search articles, concepts, and chapters

Br J OphthalmolJune 20205 citations

Comparison of outcomes between Aurolab aqueous drainage implant placed in the superotemporal versus inferonasal quadrant.

Puthuran George Varghese, Palmberg Paul Frederic, Wijesinghe Hiruni Kaushalya, Shreya Thandra Sai, Krishnadas S R, Gedde Steven J, Robin Alan L


AI Summary

This study found Aurolab glaucoma implants placed inferonasally are as safe and effective as superotemporal placement for refractory glaucoma, offering surgeons more flexibility.

Abstract

Aim

To determine the outcomes of Aurolab aqueous drainage implant (AADI) placed in the superotemporal versus the inferonasal quadrant in adult eyes with refractory glaucoma.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of eyes that had AADI placement and completed a minimum of 2-year follow-up. The choice of the quadrant was at the surgeon's discretion and mainly depended on the amount of scarring and conjunctival mobility. The cumulative failure rate of the AADI was defined as intraocular pressure (IOP) >21 mm Hg or not reduced by 20% below baseline on two consecutive follow-up visits after 3 months, IOP ≤5 mm Hg on two consecutive follow-up visits after 3 months, reoperation for glaucoma or a complication, or loss of light perception vision.

Results

We included 84 eyes with AADI in the inferonasal quadrant versus 69 eyes in the superotemporal quadrant. A significant drop in IOP was seen in both groups (18.4±10.4 mm Hg in the inferonasal group vs 17.7±11.1 mm Hg in the superotemporal group; p=0.63) at 3-month follow-up and this was maintained until last follow-up. Best-corrected visual acuity, IOP, number of IOP-lowering medications and complications were similar between the two groups at all time points. The cumulative success rate at 2-year follow-up without IOP-lowering medications was 57.1% (47.1%-68.1%) in the inferonasal group and 50.7% (39.8%-63.1%) in the superotemporal group (p=0.47).

Conclusions

Inferonasal AADI placement appears to be an equally safe and effective surgical option compared with superotemporal AADI placement and may be helpful in certain clinical situations.


MeSH Terms

AdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlaucomaGlaucoma Drainage ImplantsHumansIntraocular PressureMaleMiddle AgedProsthesis ImplantationReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeVisual Acuity

Key Concepts4

A retrospective study of 84 eyes with Aurolab aqueous drainage implant (AADI) in the inferonasal quadrant and 69 eyes with AADI in the superotemporal quadrant demonstrated a significant drop in IOP in both groups (18.4±10.4 mm Hg in the inferonasal group vs 17.7±11.1 mm Hg in the superotemporal group; p=0.63) at 3-month follow-up, which was maintained until the last follow-up.

Comparative EffectivenessCohortRetrospective Cohort Studyn=84 eyes (inferonasal) vs 69 eyes (sup…Ch42

In a retrospective study of Aurolab aqueous drainage implant (AADI) placement, best-corrected visual acuity, IOP, number of IOP-lowering medications, and complications were similar between the inferonasal AADI placement group (84 eyes) and the superotemporal AADI placement group (69 eyes) at all time points.

Comparative EffectivenessCohortRetrospective Cohort Studyn=84 eyes (inferonasal) vs 69 eyes (sup…Ch42

The cumulative success rate at 2-year follow-up without IOP-lowering medications was 57.1% (95% CI: 47.1%-68.1%) in the inferonasal Aurolab aqueous drainage implant (AADI) group (84 eyes) and 50.7% (95% CI: 39.8%-63.1%) in the superotemporal AADI group (69 eyes) (p=0.47).

Comparative EffectivenessCohortRetrospective Cohort Studyn=84 eyes (inferonasal) vs 69 eyes (sup…Ch42

Inferonasal Aurolab aqueous drainage implant (AADI) placement appears to be an equally safe and effective surgical option compared with superotemporal AADI placement for adult eyes with refractory glaucoma, as indicated by a retrospective study of 84 eyes with inferonasal AADI and 69 eyes with superotemporal AADI.

Comparative EffectivenessCohortRetrospective Cohort Studyn=84 eyes (inferonasal) vs 69 eyes (sup…Ch42

Is this article assigned to the wrong chapter(s)? Let us know.