Email this article 
Post a Comment “Anti-glaucoma implant A3”: surgical technique and the long term follow-up results
- Authors: Grineva M.K.1, Astakhov S.Y.1
-
Affiliations:
- Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University
- Issue: Vol 12, No 2 (2019)
- Pages: 19-24
- Section: Original study articles
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/ov/article/view/11190
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/OV2019219-24
- ID: 11190
Cite item
Abstract
The goal of our work was to study the safety profile and effectiveness of a domestically manufactured shunting device for the treatment of advanced stage primary open-angle glaucoma. This article describes the surgical technique of “Anti-Glaucoma Implant A3” implantation, as well as long term follow-up results obtained from 19 patients (20 eyes).
Materials and methods. The devices were implanted in 19 patients (20 eyes) with advanced stage primary open-angle glaucoma. The diagnosis was made based on collected medical history, results of objective and instrumental test findings. All patients included in the study underwent a standard ophthalmologic examination, including: automatic refractometry, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) assessment, automated static perimetry, biomicroscopy of the anterior segment, indirect ophthalmoscopy with an aspheric lens, gonioscopy. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) was used to assess retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness.
Conclusion. Intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering surgical procedures using an anti-glaucoma shunting device are non-inferior by their effectiveness to trabeculectomy, and have lower complication rate.
Full Text
##article.viewOnOriginalSite##About the authors
Maria K. Grineva
Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University
Author for correspondence.
Email: mariagrineva83@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1279-7996
SPIN-code: 4547-9835
ResearcherId: D-8824-2019
Postgraduate, Ophthalmology Department
Russian Federation, Saint PetersburgSergey Yu. Astakhov
Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University
Email: astakhov73@mail.ru
SPIN-code: 7732-1150
Scopus Author ID: 56660518500
MD, PhD, DMedSc, Professor, Head of the Ophthalmology Department
Russian Federation, Saint PetersburgReferences
- Pillunat LE, Erb C, Junemann AG, Kimmich F. Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS): a review of surgical procedures using stents. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:1583-1600. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S 135316.
- Bloom P, Au L. “Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS) Is a Poor Substitute for Trabeculectomy” – The Great Debate. Ophthalmol Ther. 2018;7(2):203-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-018-0135-9.
- Jonescu-Cuypers C. Primary viscocanalostomy versus trabeculectomy in white patients with open-angle glaucoma: A randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(2):254-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00514-5.
- Cillino S, Di Pace F, Casuccio A, Lodato G. Deep sclerectomy versus punch trabeculectomy: effect of low-dosage mitomycin C. Ophthalmologica. 2005;219(5):281-286. https://doi.org/10.1159/000086112.
- Khan BU, Ahmed II. Non-penetrating surgery. In: Atlas of glaucoma. 2nd ed. Ed. by N.T. Choplin, D.C. Lundy. London: Informa; 2007. P. 279-297.
- Mermoud A, Schnyder CC, Sickenberg M, et al. Comparison of deep sclerectomy with collagen implant and trabeculectomy in open-angle glaucoma. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;25(3):323-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(99)80079-0.
- Lüke C, Dietlein TS, Jacobi PC, et al. A prospective randomized trial of viscocanalostomy versus trabeculectomy in open-angle glaucoma: A 1-year follow-up study. J Glaucoma. 2002;11(4):294-299. https://doi.org/10.1097/00061198-200208000-00004.
- Yalvac IS, Sahin M, Eksioglu U, et al. Primary viscocanalostomy versus trabeculectomy for primary open-angle glaucoma: three-year prospective randomized clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30(10):2050-2057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.02.073.
- Gao F, Liu X, Zhao Q, Pan Y. Comparison of the iCare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Exp Ther Med. 2017;13(5):1912-1916. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.4164.
- Guler M, Bilak S, Bilgin B, et al. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements obtained by Icare PRO rebound tonometer, Tomey FT-1000 noncontact tonometer, and goldmann applanation tonometer in healthy subjects. J Glaucoma. 2015;24(8):613-618. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000132.
- Pakrou N, Gray T, Mills R, et al. Clinical comparison of the Icare tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2008;17(1):43-47. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0b013e318133fb32.
- Harada Y, Hirose N, Kubota T, Tawara A. The influence of central corneal thickness and corneal curvature radius on the intraocular pressure as measured by different tonometers: noncontact and goldmann applanation tonometers. J Glaucoma. 2008;17(8): 619-625. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181634f0f.
Supplementary files
