IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/gjhsjl/v13y2021i2p27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Scleral Tunnel and Pericardial Graft Implantation Techniques in Patients undergoing Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Implantation

Author

Listed:
  • Medhat A Bakr
  • Shaikha Al-Eid

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the two methods autologous scleral flap (scleral tunnel) and pericardial patch graft of tube covered in Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) in refractory glaucoma with respect to the tube exposure, infection, level of Intraocular Pressure (IOP), and any other complications due to applications of each technique. A retrospective chart review of 113 eyes in 102 patients with refractory glaucoma who underwent ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implantation (39 eyes in scleral tunnel and scleral flap group “first group” and 74 eyes in pericardium graft group” second group”) was performed. The procedures in these eyes were performed between January 2007 and October 2015 in a tertiary eye care hospital in KSA. The mean age was 56 ± 19 (8 months- 83 years) in the Scleral tunnel group and 50 ± 27 (1- 78 years) in the Pericardium group (p = 0.023). Fifty-six males and 57 females were included in the study. Medians of the follow-up were 48 ± 25.5 months (3 – 89) for the Scleral tunnel group and 29 ± 21.4 months (2 – 92) for the Pericardium group, and it is statistically significant (P < 0.001). According to the findings, preoperative diagnosis in the two groups included neovascular glaucoma (NVG) found in 21 eyes (53.8%) in the Scleral tunnel group versus 18 eyes (24.3%) in the Pericardium group (p = 0.009). Exposure of the valve was found in 15 eyes (20.27%) in Pericardium graft group versus 2 eyes (5.12%) only in scleral tunnel group (p = 0.002). These exposed valves lead to endophthalmitis in 5 cases in the second group and no single case in scleral tunnel group was detected (P < 0.001). The postoperative IOP values were statistically insignificant in all different time periods. Scleral tunnel method has less exposure rate than the pericardium graft. The purpose of this study was to compare the two methods autologous scleral flap (scleral tunnel) and pericardial patch graft of tube covered in Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) in refractory glaucoma with respect to the tube exposure, infection, level of Intraocular Pressure (IOP), and any other complications due to applications of each technique. A retrospective chart review of 113 eyes in 102 patients with refractory glaucoma who underwent ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implantation (39 eyes in scleral tunnel and scleral flap group “first group” and 74 eyes in pericardium graft group” second group”) was performed. The procedures in these eyes were performed between January 2007 and October 2015 in a tertiary eye care hospital in KSA. The mean age was 56 ± 19 (8 months- 83 years) in the Scleral tunnel group and 50 ± 27 (1- 78 years) in the Pericardium group (p = 0.023). Fifty-six males and 57 females were included in the study. Medians of the follow-up were 48 ± 25.5 months (3 – 89) for the Scleral tunnel group and 29 ± 21.4 months (2 – 92) for the Pericardium group, and it is statistically significant (P < 0.001). According to the findings, preoperative diagnosis in the two groups included neovascular glaucoma (NVG) found in 21 eyes (53.8%) in the Scleral tunnel group versus 18 eyes (24.3%) in the Pericardium group (p = 0.009). Exposure of the valve was found in 15 eyes (20.27%) in Pericardium graft group versus 2 eyes (5.12%) only in scleral tunnel group (p = 0.002). These exposed valves lead to endophthalmitis in 5 cases in the second group and no single case in scleral tunnel group was detected (P < 0.001). The postoperative IOP values were statistically insignificant in all different time periods. Scleral tunnel method has less exposure rate than the pericardium graft.

Suggested Citation

  • Medhat A Bakr & Shaikha Al-Eid, 2021. "A Comparison of Scleral Tunnel and Pericardial Graft Implantation Techniques in Patients undergoing Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Implantation," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:gjhsjl:v:13:y:2021:i:2:p:27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/download/0/0/44435/46858
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/view/0/44435
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:gjhsjl:v:13:y:2021:i:2:p:27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.