Management of implant plate exposure of silicone Ahmed glaucoma valve: a review of six cases

Objective: To describe the management options for exposed silicone Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implant.Methods: This was carried out as a retrospective chart review at a tertiary care eye hospital in Southern India. Medical records of six subjects managed for AGV exposure from 2006 to 2013 were revie...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Roy, Avik Kumar, Senthil, Sirisha
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House 2016-09-01
Series:GMS Ophthalmology Cases
Online Access:http://www.egms.de/static/en/journals/oc/2016-6/oc000047.shtml
id doaj-a8aefa34b3384058ad76aa6b87d7bc6c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-a8aefa34b3384058ad76aa6b87d7bc6c2020-11-25T02:49:57ZengGerman Medical Science GMS Publishing HouseGMS Ophthalmology Cases2193-14962016-09-016Doc1010.3205/oc000047Management of implant plate exposure of silicone Ahmed glaucoma valve: a review of six casesRoy, Avik Kumar0Senthil, Sirisha1VST Glaucoma Center, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Kallam Anji Reddy campus, Hyderabad, IndiaVST Glaucoma Center, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Kallam Anji Reddy campus, Hyderabad, IndiaObjective: To describe the management options for exposed silicone Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implant.Methods: This was carried out as a retrospective chart review at a tertiary care eye hospital in Southern India. Medical records of six subjects managed for AGV exposure from 2006 to 2013 were reviewed.Results: All six eyes had explantation of the AGV and 3 of them had reimplantation in a different quadrant at a later date and the other 3 eyes were managed medically. All eyes had well controlled IOP at the last follow-up. The possible predisposing factors for exposure were improper conjunctival coverage, higher number of pre shunt surgeries and diabetes mellitus. Reimplantation was a challenge with scarred conjunctiva and the techniques used were conjunctival advancement, conjunctival relaxing incisions and contralateral conjunctival autograft. None had re-exposure but one eye had conjunctival erosion close to the limbus and was managed with scleral patch graft and conjunctival advancement.Conclusions: Implant exposure is a serious vision threatening complication following glaucoma drainage device implantation. Explantation and timely repair can save these eyes from serious sequel. Reimplantation is a good option, however warrants close follow-up for complications like erosion or re-exposure.http://www.egms.de/static/en/journals/oc/2016-6/oc000047.shtml
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Roy, Avik Kumar
Senthil, Sirisha
spellingShingle Roy, Avik Kumar
Senthil, Sirisha
Management of implant plate exposure of silicone Ahmed glaucoma valve: a review of six cases
GMS Ophthalmology Cases
author_facet Roy, Avik Kumar
Senthil, Sirisha
author_sort Roy, Avik Kumar
title Management of implant plate exposure of silicone Ahmed glaucoma valve: a review of six cases
title_short Management of implant plate exposure of silicone Ahmed glaucoma valve: a review of six cases
title_full Management of implant plate exposure of silicone Ahmed glaucoma valve: a review of six cases
title_fullStr Management of implant plate exposure of silicone Ahmed glaucoma valve: a review of six cases
title_full_unstemmed Management of implant plate exposure of silicone Ahmed glaucoma valve: a review of six cases
title_sort management of implant plate exposure of silicone ahmed glaucoma valve: a review of six cases
publisher German Medical Science GMS Publishing House
series GMS Ophthalmology Cases
issn 2193-1496
publishDate 2016-09-01
description Objective: To describe the management options for exposed silicone Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implant.Methods: This was carried out as a retrospective chart review at a tertiary care eye hospital in Southern India. Medical records of six subjects managed for AGV exposure from 2006 to 2013 were reviewed.Results: All six eyes had explantation of the AGV and 3 of them had reimplantation in a different quadrant at a later date and the other 3 eyes were managed medically. All eyes had well controlled IOP at the last follow-up. The possible predisposing factors for exposure were improper conjunctival coverage, higher number of pre shunt surgeries and diabetes mellitus. Reimplantation was a challenge with scarred conjunctiva and the techniques used were conjunctival advancement, conjunctival relaxing incisions and contralateral conjunctival autograft. None had re-exposure but one eye had conjunctival erosion close to the limbus and was managed with scleral patch graft and conjunctival advancement.Conclusions: Implant exposure is a serious vision threatening complication following glaucoma drainage device implantation. Explantation and timely repair can save these eyes from serious sequel. Reimplantation is a good option, however warrants close follow-up for complications like erosion or re-exposure.
url http://www.egms.de/static/en/journals/oc/2016-6/oc000047.shtml
work_keys_str_mv AT royavikkumar managementofimplantplateexposureofsiliconeahmedglaucomavalveareviewofsixcases
AT senthilsirisha managementofimplantplateexposureofsiliconeahmedglaucomavalveareviewofsixcases
_version_ 1724741173564669952