4.1 Article

Sutureless human sclera donor patch graft for Ahmed glaucoma valve

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 546-551

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/112067211002000302

关键词

Ahmed glaucoma valve; Patch graft; Refractory glaucoma; Sclera donor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. To report the safety and effectiveness of a sutureless human sclera donor patch graft covering the subconjunctival portion of glaucoma drainage implant tube to prevent its erosion throughout the overlying conjunctiva. Methods. This was a prospective pilot study. Fifteen eyes of 15 consecutive patients not responsive to medical and to not-implant surgical glaucoma treatment underwent Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implant surgery with sutureless human sclera donor patch graft. The surgical procedure included AVG implant placed 8 mm behind the corneal limbus and fixed to the sclera with two 9-0 black nylon sutures. The tube was passed through the scleral tunnel, parallel to the corneal limbus, and shortened at the desired length. The anterior part of the tube was covered with human donor scleral graft and kept in place with fibrin glue (Tissue Coll (R)) under the conjunctiva. Examinations were scheduled at baseline and then at 1 week and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results. At 12-month follow-up, the best-corrected visual acuity did not significantly improve from baseline 0.78+/-1.2 logMAR, whereas mean intraocular pressure significantly decreased from preoperative values of 29.8 (SD 8.4) mmHg. In all cases, the scleral patch was found in place at each check during the follow-up period. No conjunctival erosion over the AGV tube nor sign of endophthalmitis was recorded at any time during the follow-up period. Conclusions. AVG implant surgery with sutureless human sclera donor patch graft represents an effective and relatively safe surgical procedure for complicated glaucomas, avoiding conjunctival erosions over the AGV tube. (Eur J Ophthalmol 2010; 20: 546-51)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据