Aqueous shunts in the treatment of glaucoma

References

• Friedman DS, Wolfs RC, O’Colmain BJ et al. Eye diseases prevalence research group. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma among adults in the United States. Arch. Ophthalmol.122(4), 532–538 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong CH, Arosemana A, Zurakowski D, Ayyala RS. Glaucoma drainage devices: a systematic literature review and current controversies. Surv. Ophthalmol.50, 48–60 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim KS, Allan BD, Lloyd AW et al. Glaucoma drainage devices: past, present, and future. BR. J. Ophthalmol.82, 1083–1089 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minckler DS. Glaucoma drainage devices, horsehair to silicone. In: 100 Years of Progress in Glaucoma. Van Buskirk EM, Shields MB (Eds). Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, PA, USA 287–292 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Minckler DS, Francis BA, Hodapp EA et al. Aqueous shunts in glaucoma. A report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology115(6), 1089–1098 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minckler DS, Vedula SS, Li TJ, Mathew MC, Ayyala RS, Francis BA. Aqueous shunts for glaucoma. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.19(2), CD004918 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Prata JA, Mermoud A, LaBree L, Minckler DS. In vitro and in vivo flow characteristics of glaucoma drainage implants. Ophthalmology102, 894–904 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minckler DS, Shammas A, Wilcox M, Ogden TE. Experimental studies of aqueous filtration using the Molteno Implant. Trans. Am. Ophthalmol. Soc.85, 368–392 (1987).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schwartz KS, Lee RK, Gedde SJ. Glaucoma drainage implants: a critical comparison of types. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol.17(2), 181–189 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilcox MJ, Barad JP, Wilcox CC, Peebles EL, Minckler DS. Performance of a new, low-volume, high-surface area aqueous shunt in normal rabbit eyes. J. Glaucoma9(1), 74–82 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rauscher FM, Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, Barton K, Lee RK. Tube versus Trabeculectomy Study Group. Motility disturbances in the tube versus trabeculectomy study during the first year of follow-up. Am. J. Ophthalmol.147(3), 458–466 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WuDunn D, Phan AD, Cantor LB, Lind JT, Cortes A, Wu B. Clinical experience with the Baerveldt 250-mm2 Glaucoma Implant. Ophthalmology113(5), 766–772 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Guzman MH, Valencia A, Farinelli AC. Pars plana insertion of glaucoma drainage devices for refractory glaucoma. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol.34(2), 102–107 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Syed HM, Law SK, Nam SH, Li G, Caprioli J, Coleman A. Baerveldt-350 implant versus Ahmed valve for refractory glaucoma: a case-controlled comparison. J. Glaucoma13(1), 38–45 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsai JC, Johnson CC, Kammer JA, Dietrich MS. The Ahmed shunt versus the Baerveldt shunt for refractory glaucoma II: longer-term outcomes from a single surgeon. Ophthalmology113(6), 913–917 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Mackenzie PJ, Schertzer RM, Isbister CM. Comparison of silicone and polypropylene Ahmed glaucoma valves: two-year follow-up. Can. J. Ophthalmol.42(2), 227–232 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brasil MV, Rockwood EJ, Smith SD.Comparison of silicone and polypropylene Ahmed Glaucoma Valve implants. J. Glaucoma16(1), 36–41 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law SK, Nguyen A, Coleman AL, Caprioli J. Comparison of safety and efficacy between silicone and polypropylene Ahmed glaucoma valves in refractory glaucoma. Ophthalmology112(9), 1514–1520 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ishida K, Netland PA, Costa VP, Shiroma L, Khan B, Ahmed II. Comparison of polypropylene and silicone ahmed glaucoma valves. Ophthalmology113(8), 1320–1326 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, Budenz DL. Tube versus trabeculectomy study group.Three-year follow-up of the tube versus trabeculectomy study. Am. J. Ophthalmol.148(5), 670–684 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen TC, Bhatia LS, Walton DS. Ahmed valve surgery for refractory pediatric glaucoma: a report of 52 eyes. J. Pediatr. Ophthalmol. Strabismus.42(5), 274–283 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Englert JA, Freedman SF, Cox TA. The Ahmed valve in refractory pediatric glaucoma. Am. J. Ophthalmol.127(1), 34–42 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• O’Malley Schotthoefer E, Yanovitch TL, Freedman SF. Aqueous drainage device surgery in refractory pediatric glaucomas. Long-term outcomes. J. AAPOS12(1), 33–39 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanimoto SA, Brandt JD. Options in pediatric glaucoma after angle surgery has failed. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol.17(2), 132–137 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geffen N, Trope GE, Alasbali T, Salonen D, Crowley AP, Buys YM. Is the Ex-PRESS glaucoma shunt magnetic resonance imaging safe? J. Glaucoma19(2), 116–118 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maris PJ Jr, Ishida K, Netland PA. Comparison of trabeculectomy with Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma device implanted under scleral flap. J. Glaucoma16(1), 14–19 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. Glaucoma18(6), 488–491 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong LA. The Ex-PRESS glaucoma shunt versus trabeculectomy in open-angle glaucoma: a prospective randomized study. Adv. Ther.26(3), 336–345 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar