Tube Revision Outcomes for Exposure with Different Repair Techniques

Abeer Alawi,1 Ali AlBeshri,1 Konrad Schargel,1 Khabir Ahmad,2 Rizwan Malik1 1Glaucoma Division, King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2Research Department, King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Rizwan MalikKing Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, A...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Alawi A, AlBeshri A, Schargel K, Ahmad K, Malik R
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Dove Medical Press 2020
Materias:	glaucoma drainage device tube exposure surgical repair Ophthalmology RE1-994
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/31032f8b476d479ebf920175d6bcebe7
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:31032f8b476d479ebf920175d6bcebe7
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:31032f8b476d479ebf920175d6bcebe72021-12-02T11:15:29ZTube Revision Outcomes for Exposure with Different Repair Techniques1177-5483https://doaj.org/article/31032f8b476d479ebf920175d6bcebe72020-10-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.dovepress.com/tube-revision-outcomes-for-exposure-with-different-repair-techniques-peer-reviewed-article-OPTHhttps://doaj.org/toc/1177-5483Abeer Alawi,1 Ali AlBeshri,1 Konrad Schargel,1 Khabir Ahmad,2 Rizwan Malik1 1Glaucoma Division, King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2Research Department, King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Rizwan MalikKing Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Al Urubah Branch Road, Umm Al Hamam Al Gharbi, Riyadh 12329, Saudi ArabiaTel +966 11 482 1234Fax +966 11 4829311Email rizimalik@gmail.comPurpose: The aim of this study was to report our experience with eyes that presented with an initial GDD exposure and their subsequent outcome in terms of re-exposure.Methods: A retrospective review of charts of 42 patients (43 eyes) who presented with a GDD exposure during the period 2008– 2015 in a tertiary eye care center was performed. Demographic data, past ocular history, pre-operative and post-operative information including the surgical technique of GDD surgery and exposure repair were recorded. The patients were followed for further exposure to the date of the last follow-up clinic visit. For each type of repair technique, details were collected on risk and timing of GDD exposure. The baseline features of eyes that had further exposure after initial exposure were compared to eyes without further exposure.Results: Forty-three eyes were identified which had repair after an initial exposure. The mean ± SD age was 54 ± 27 years. Of the GDDs, Ahmed FP7 was performed in 31 eyes, Ahmed FP8 in two eyes, Ahmed S2 in five eyes, Krupin valve in two eyes and Baerveldt 350 GDD in three eyes. The methods of repair and the relative risk [95% CI] of re-exposure were: conjunctival closure only (n=4; RR=2.10 [0.84– 5.23]); repair with patch graft and conjunctival repair (n=18), RR=1.24 [0.51– 3.01]; tube repositioning, use of patch graft and conjunctival repair (n=14), RR=1.0; tube removal with replacement in a different quadrant, patch graft and conjunctival repair (n=3), RR=1.87 [0.64– 5.48]. After the first exposure, 18 eyes had a second re-exposure, four eyes had a third re-exposure, and 1 eye had a fourth exposure.Conclusions: The GDD exposure rates at our institution are consistent with other reports. Lack of a patch graft for repair is associated with a two-fold risk of subsequent re-exposure.Keywords: glaucoma drainage device, tube exposure, surgical repairAlawi AAlBeshri ASchargel KAhmad KMalik RDove Medical Pressarticleglaucoma drainage devicetube exposuresurgical repairOphthalmologyRE1-994ENClinical Ophthalmology, Vol Volume 14, Pp 3001-3008 (2020)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	glaucoma drainage device tube exposure surgical repair Ophthalmology RE1-994
spellingShingle	glaucoma drainage device tube exposure surgical repair Ophthalmology RE1-994 Alawi A AlBeshri A Schargel K Ahmad K Malik R Tube Revision Outcomes for Exposure with Different Repair Techniques
description	Abeer Alawi,1 Ali AlBeshri,1 Konrad Schargel,1 Khabir Ahmad,2 Rizwan Malik1 1Glaucoma Division, King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2Research Department, King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Rizwan MalikKing Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Al Urubah Branch Road, Umm Al Hamam Al Gharbi, Riyadh 12329, Saudi ArabiaTel +966 11 482 1234Fax +966 11 4829311Email rizimalik@gmail.comPurpose: The aim of this study was to report our experience with eyes that presented with an initial GDD exposure and their subsequent outcome in terms of re-exposure.Methods: A retrospective review of charts of 42 patients (43 eyes) who presented with a GDD exposure during the period 2008– 2015 in a tertiary eye care center was performed. Demographic data, past ocular history, pre-operative and post-operative information including the surgical technique of GDD surgery and exposure repair were recorded. The patients were followed for further exposure to the date of the last follow-up clinic visit. For each type of repair technique, details were collected on risk and timing of GDD exposure. The baseline features of eyes that had further exposure after initial exposure were compared to eyes without further exposure.Results: Forty-three eyes were identified which had repair after an initial exposure. The mean ± SD age was 54 ± 27 years. Of the GDDs, Ahmed FP7 was performed in 31 eyes, Ahmed FP8 in two eyes, Ahmed S2 in five eyes, Krupin valve in two eyes and Baerveldt 350 GDD in three eyes. The methods of repair and the relative risk [95% CI] of re-exposure were: conjunctival closure only (n=4; RR=2.10 [0.84– 5.23]); repair with patch graft and conjunctival repair (n=18), RR=1.24 [0.51– 3.01]; tube repositioning, use of patch graft and conjunctival repair (n=14), RR=1.0; tube removal with replacement in a different quadrant, patch graft and conjunctival repair (n=3), RR=1.87 [0.64– 5.48]. After the first exposure, 18 eyes had a second re-exposure, four eyes had a third re-exposure, and 1 eye had a fourth exposure.Conclusions: The GDD exposure rates at our institution are consistent with other reports. Lack of a patch graft for repair is associated with a two-fold risk of subsequent re-exposure.Keywords: glaucoma drainage device, tube exposure, surgical repair
format	article
author	Alawi A AlBeshri A Schargel K Ahmad K Malik R
author_facet	Alawi A AlBeshri A Schargel K Ahmad K Malik R
author_sort	Alawi A
title	Tube Revision Outcomes for Exposure with Different Repair Techniques
title_short	Tube Revision Outcomes for Exposure with Different Repair Techniques
title_full	Tube Revision Outcomes for Exposure with Different Repair Techniques
title_fullStr	Tube Revision Outcomes for Exposure with Different Repair Techniques
title_full_unstemmed	Tube Revision Outcomes for Exposure with Different Repair Techniques
title_sort	tube revision outcomes for exposure with different repair techniques
publisher	Dove Medical Press
publishDate	2020
url	https://doaj.org/article/31032f8b476d479ebf920175d6bcebe7
work_keys_str_mv	AT alawia tuberevisionoutcomesforexposurewithdifferentrepairtechniques AT albeshria tuberevisionoutcomesforexposurewithdifferentrepairtechniques AT schargelk tuberevisionoutcomesforexposurewithdifferentrepairtechniques AT ahmadk tuberevisionoutcomesforexposurewithdifferentrepairtechniques AT malikr tuberevisionoutcomesforexposurewithdifferentrepairtechniques
_version_	1718396042113712128

Tube Revision Outcomes for Exposure with Different Repair Techniques

Ejemplares similares