Trending Topic

23 mins

Trending Topic

Developed by Touch
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked
Luke G Qin, Michael T Pierce, Rachel C Robbins

The uvea is a vascular stratum that includes the iris, ciliary body and choroid. Uveitis is defined as inflammation of a part of the uvea or its entirety, but it is also used to describe inflammatory processes of any part of the eye, such as the vitreous or peripheral retina. The clinical taxonomy of uveitis […]

< 1 min

Advances in the Surgical Management of Glaucoma—The Role of the EX-PRESS® Glaucoma Filtration Device

David W Cope
Share
Facebook
X (formerly Twitter)
LinkedIn
Via Email
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked
Copy LinkLink Copied
Download as PDF
Published Online: Jun 21st 2012 US Ophthalmic Review, 2012;5(2):81-6 DOI: http://doi.org/10.17925/USOR.2012.05.02.81
Select a Section…
1

Abstract

Overview

By reducing intraocular pressure (IOP), we aim to arrest the glaucomatous process. Our strategies include medical, laser, and surgical techniques. Trabeculectomy is the gold standard drainage surgery to achieve this; as there can be a high degree of variability in the procedure and its success depends on bleb creation, with the challenges of wound healing modulation, results remain unpredictable. Several devices are being assessed to try to achieve ‘minimally invasive glaucoma surgery’. While results will take some years to evaluate rigorously, it seems IOP levels by these means lie in the mid-teens. These minimally invasive glaucoma surgery techniques therefore would appear to be destined for patients whose glaucomatous damage is relatively mild to moderate and whose target IOPs fall into this range. To simultaneously achieve lower IOPs for patients with more advanced visual loss, efforts have been made to ‘fine-tune’ trabeculectomy. Use of the EX-PRESS® Glaucoma Filtration Device (GFD) under a scleral flap is one such approach. How does the EX-PRESS® GFD benefit the conventional trabeculectomy procedure? What tips and tricks contribute to its success? How safe is it? Is the additional cost to our health systems justifiable? This symposium, sponsored by Alcon, set out to try to answer these questions.

Keywords

Aqueous outflow, filtration surgery, glaucoma, intraocular pressure, trabeculectomy

2

Article

Although for open-angle glaucoma the level of intraocular pressure (IOP) is no longer recognized as a defining criterion, it is a major risk factor for the development and progression of the disease.1–6 Medical, laser, and surgical therapies therefore reduce IOP to attempt to modify disease progression.7,8 Trabeculectomy is the current gold standard of filtration surgery in the management of primary open-angle glaucoma following the failure of IOP-lowering medications or non-invasive surgery such as laser trabeculoplasty.9–11 Trabeculectomy can effectively control IOP,12–15 even in the long term,16–20 but published success rates can vary, in part due to the lack of standard definitions of success.21 Moreover, trabeculectomy is associated with significant complications including early post-operative hypotony, bleb leak, blebitis and bleb failure, choroidal effusions, endophthalmitis, hyphema, shallowing of the anterior chamber, and accelerated cataract progression.9 Patients who fail to respond to trabeculectomy may require additional surgery, in some instances a second trabeculectomy, or implantation of a drainage device.22 As a result, some studies have suggested that the risks of trabeculectomy outweigh the benefits.18,23

Incremental improvements in trabeculectomy have proved valuable in refining the technique and include the use of a traction suture to control the position of the eye, appropriate and optimal wound healing techniques to prevent fibrosis and scarring, use of a fornix-based conjunctival flap, creation of a large scleral flap to maximize posterior aqueous flow and enable the development of a diffuse bleb, adjustable sutures to control aqueous flow, and a standardized trabeculectomy aperture.24,25 Such refinements can improve patient outcomes.26,27

To view the full article in PDF or eBook formats, please click on the icons above.

2

References

  1. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. The
    effectiveness of intraocular pressure reduction in the
    treatment of normal-tension glaucoma, Am J Ophthalmol,
    1998;126:498–505.

  2. The AGIS Investigators. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention
    Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of
    intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration,
    Am J Ophthalmol, 2000;130:429–40.

  3. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, et al., Factors for glaucoma
    progression and the effect of treatment. The Early Manifest
    Glaucoma Trial, Arch Ophthalmol, 2003;121:48–56.

  4. Sommer A, Tielsch JM, Katz J, et al., Relationship between
    intraocular pressure and primary open angle glaucoma among
    white and black Americans, Arch Ophthalmol, 1991;109:1090–5.

  5. Wesselink C, Marcus MW, Jansonius NM, Risk factors for
    visual field progression in the Groningen Longitudinal
    Glaucoma Study: a comparison of different statistical
    approaches, J Glaucoma, 2011 Jun 22. [Epub ahead of print].

  6. Quigley HA, Glaucoma, Lancet, 2011;377:1367–77.
  7. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al., Reduction of intraocular
    pressure and glaucoma progression. Results from the Early
    Manifest Glaucoma Trial, Arch Ophthalmol, 2002;120:1268–79.

  8. Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, et al., Interim clinical
    outcomes in The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment
    Study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications
    or surgery, Ophthalmology, 2001;108:1943–53.

  9. Edmunds B, Thompson JR, Salmon JF, Wormald RP, The
    National Survey of Trabeculectomy. III. Early and late
    complications, Eye (Lond), 2002;16:297–303.

  10. Mantravadi AV, Myers JS, Reconsidering trabeculectomy’s
    strengths and weaknesses, Clin Experiment Ophthalmol,
    2010;38:827–8.

  11. Sharaawy T, Bhartiya S, Surgical management of glaucoma:
    evolving paradigms, Indian J Ophthalmol, 2011;59(Suppl. 1):S123–30.

  12. Diestelhorst M, Khalili MA, Krieglstein GK, Trabeculectomy: a
    retrospective follow-up of 700 eyes, Int Ophthalmol,
    1999;22:211–20.

  13. Edmunds B, Thompson JR, Salmon JF, Wormald RP, The
    National Survey of Trabeculectomy. II. Variations in operative
    technique and outcome, Eye (Lond), 2001;15:441–8.

  14. Ehrnrooth P, Lehto I, Puska P, Laatikainen L, Long-term
    outcome of trabeculectomy in terms of intraocular pressure,
    Acta Ophthalmol Scand, 2002;80:267–71.

  15. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, et al., Treatment outcomes
    in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study after one year of
    follow-up, Am J Ophthalmol, 2007;143:9–22.

  16. Beckers HJM, Kinders KC, Webers CAB, Five-year results of
    trabeculectomy with mitomycin C, Graefes Arch Clin Exp
    Ophthalmol, 2003;241:106–10.

  17. Bevin TH, Molteno ACB, Herbison P, Otago Glaucoma Surgery
    Outcome Study: long-term results of 841 trabeculectomies,
    Clin Experiment Ophthalmol, 2008;36:731–7.

  18. Bindlish R, Condon GP, Schlosser JD, et al., Efficacy and safety
    of mitomycin-C in primary trabeculectomy, Ophthalmology,
    2002;109:1336–42.

  19. Crowston JG, Long-term outcomes of trabeculectomy,
    Clin Experiment Ophthalmol, 2008;36:705–6.

  20. Molteno ACB, Bosma NJ, Kittelson JM, Otago Glaucoma
    Surgery Outcome Study. Long-term results of trabeculectomy
    – 1976 to 1995, Ophthalmology, 1999;106:1742–50.

  21. Rotchford AP, King AJ, Moving the goal posts. Definitions of
    success after glaucoma surgery and their effect on reported
    outcome, Ophthalmology, 2010;117:18–23.

  22. Patel S, Pasquale LR, Glaucoma drainage devices: a review
    of the past, present, and future, Semin Ophthalmol,
    2010;25:265–70.

  23. DeBry PW, Perkins TW, Heatley G, et al., Incidence of lateonset
    bleb-related complications following trabeculectomy
    with mitomycin, Arch Ophthalmol, 2002;120:297–300.

  24. Jones E, Clarke J, Khaw PT, Recent advances in trabeculectomy
    technique, Curr Opin Ophthalmol, 2005;16:107–13.

  25. Papadopoulos A, Khaw PT, Improving glaucoma filtering
    surgery, Eye (Lond), 2001;15:131–2.

  26. Gale J, Wells AP, Medium-term outcomes of safe surgery
    system trabeculectomies, Br J Ophthalmol, 2008;92:1232–5.

  27. Stalmans I, Gillis A, Lafaut AS, Zeyen T, Safe trabeculectomy
    technique: long term outcome, Br J Ophthalmol, 2008;90:44–7.

  28. Salim S, Ex-PRESS glaucoma filtration device-surgical
    technique and outcomes, Int Ophthalmol Clin, 2011;51:83–94.

  29. Alcon EX-PRESS glaucoma filtration device package insert, 2011.
    Available at: www.alconglaucomasurgery.com (accessed March
    8, 2012).

  30. Nyska A, Glovinsky Y, Belkin M, Epstein Y, Biocompatibility of
    the Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma drainage implant, J Glaucoma,
    2003;12:275–80.

  31. Stewart RM, Diamond JG, Ashmore ED, Ayyala RS,
    Complications following Ex-Press glaucoma shunt
    implantation, Am J Ophthalmol, 2005;140:340–1.

  32. Traverso CE, De Feo F, Messas-Kaplan A, et al., Long term
    effect on IOP of a stainless steel glaucoma drainage implant
    (Ex-PRESS) in combined surgery with phacoemulsification,
    Br J Ophthalmol, 2005;89:425–9.

  33. Wamsley S, Moster MR, Rai S, et al., Results of the use of the
    Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma implant in technically
    challenging, advanced glaucoma cases: a clinical pilot study,
    Am J Ophthalmol, 2004;138:1049–51.

  34. Dahan E, Carmichael TR, Implantation of a miniature glaucoma
    device under a scleral flap, J Glaucoma, 2005;14:98–102.

  35. Maris PJ Jr, Ishida K, Netland PA, Comparison of
    trabeculectomy with Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma device
    implanted under scleral flap, J Glaucoma, 2007;16:14–9.

  36. de Jong LA, The Ex-PRESS glaucoma shunt versus
    trabeculectomy in open-angle glaucoma: a prospective
    randomized study, Adv Ther, 2009;26:336–45.

  37. de Jong L, Lafuma A, Aguadé AS, Berdeaux G, Five-year
    extension of a clinical trial comparing the EX-PRESS glaucoma
    filtration device and trabeculectomy in primary open-angle
    glaucoma, Clin Ophthalmol, 2011;5:527–33.

  38. Seibold LK, Rorrer RAL, Kahook MY, MRI of the Ex-PRESS
    stainless steel glaucoma drainage device, Br J Ophthalmol,
    2011;95:251–4.

  39. Geffen N, Trope GE, Alasbali T, et al., Is the Ex-PRESS
    glaucoma shunt magnetic resonance imaging safe?,
    J Glaucoma, 2010;19:116–8.

  40. De Feo F, Roccatagliata L, Bonzano L, et al., Magnetic
    resonance imaging in patients implanted with Ex-PRESS
    stainless steel glaucoma drainage microdevice, Am J
    Ophthalmol, 2009;147:907–11.

  41. Kanner EM, Netland PA, Sarkisian SR Jr, Du H, Ex-PRESS
    miniature glaucoma device implanted under a scleral flap
    alone or combined with phacoemulsification cataract surgery,
    J Glaucoma, 2009;18:488–91.

  42. Lankaranian D, Razeghinejad MR, Prasad A, et al.,
    Intermediate-term results of the Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma
    implant under a scleral flap in previously operated eyes,
    Clin Experiment Ophthalmol, 2011;39:421–8.

3

Article Information

Disclosure

David Cope is a medical writer at Touch Briefings. Ivan Goldberg is an advisory board member for Alcon, Allergan, Merck, and Pfizer, a consultant for Alcon, ForSight, and Merck, and receives research support from Alcon and Allergan.

Correspondence

Ivan Goldberg, Discipline of Ophthalmology, University of Sydney, Eye Associates, Floor 4, Macquarie Street, Sydney 2000, Australia. E: eyegoldberg@gmail.com

Support

The editorial support for, and publication of, this article was funded by Alcon.

Received

2011-09-16T00:00:00

4

Further Resources

Share
Facebook
X (formerly Twitter)
LinkedIn
Via Email
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked
Copy LinkLink Copied
Download as PDF
Close Popup