In Vitro Fluid Dynamics of the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Modified with Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene

REFERENCES

• Lim KS, Allan BD, Lloyd AW, et al. Glaucoma drainage devices: Past, present, and future. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82:1083–1089.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson MR, Mendis U, Smith SD, et al. Ahmed glaucoma valve implant vs trabeculectomy in the surgical treatment of glaucoma: A randomized clinical trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:267–273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson MR, Mendis U, Paliwal A, et al. Long-term follow-up of primary glaucoma surgery with Ahmed glaucoma valve implant versus trabeculectomy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:464–470.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, et al. Three-year follow-up of the tube versus trabeculectomy study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148:670–684.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topouzis F, Coleman AL, Choplin N, et al. Follow-up of the original cohort with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128:198–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein JD, McCoy AN, Asrani S, et al. Surgical management of hypotony owing to overfiltration in eyes receiving glaucoma drainage devices. J Glaucoma. 2009;18:638–641.
   Google Scholar
• Nouri-Mahdavi K, Caprioli J. Evaluation of the hypertensive phase after insertion of the Ahmed glaucoma valve. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:1001–1008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman RM, el-Harazi SM, Villanueva G. Valve membrane adhesion as a cause of Ahmed glaucoma valve failure. J Glaucoma. 1997;6:10–12.
   Google Scholar
• Hong CH, Arosemena A, Zurakowski D, et al. Glaucoma drainage devices: A systematic literature review and current controversies. Surv Ophthalmol. 2005;50:48–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Classen L, Kivela T, Tarkkanen A. Histopathologic and immunohistochemical analysis of the filtration bleb after unsuccessful glaucoma seton implantation. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;122:205–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman AL, Mondino BJ, Wilson MR, et al. Clinical experience with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in eyes with prior or concurrent penetrating keratoplasties. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;123:54–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minckler D. Advances with aqueous shunts—1990 to 2001. J Glaucoma. 2001;10:S85–S87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayyala RS, Harman LE, Michelini-Norris B, et al. Comparison of different biomaterials for glaucoma drainage devices. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:233–236.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ayyala RS, Michelini-Norris B, Flores A, et al. Comparison of different biomaterials for glaucoma drainage devices: Part 2. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:1081–1084.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salzmann DL, Kleinert LB, Berman SS, et al. The effects of porosity on endothelialization of ePTFE implanted in subcutaneous and adipose tissue. J Biomed Mater Res. 1997;34:463–476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharkawy AA, Klitzman B, Truskey GA, et al. Engineering the tissue which encapsulates subcutaneous implants. I. Diffusion properties. J Biomed Mater Res. 1997;37:401–412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharkawy AA, Klitzman B, Truskey GA, et al. Engineering the tissue which encapsulates subcutaneous implants. II. Plasma-tissue exchange properties. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;40:586–597.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharkawy AA, Klitzman B, Truskey GA, et al. Engineering the tissue which encapsulates subcutaneous implants. III. Effective tissue response times. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;40:598–605.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa VP, Azuara-Blanco A, Netland PA, et al. Efficacy and safety of adjunctive mitomycin C during Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:1071–1076.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurnaz E, Kubaloglu A, Yilmaz Y, et al. The effect of adjunctive Mitomycin C in Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2005;15:27–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee D, Shin DH, Birt CM, et al. The effect of adjunctive mitomycin C in Molteno implant surgery. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:2126–2135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trible JR, Brown DB. Occlusive ligature and standardized fenestration of a Baerveldt tube with and without antimetabolites for early postoperative intraocular pressure control. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:2243–2250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Mobarak F, Khan AO. Two-year survival of Ahmed valve implantation in the first 2 years of life with and without intraoperative mitomycin-C. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:1862–1865.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvarado JA, Hollander DA, Juster RP, et al. Ahmed valve implantation with adjunctive mitomycin C and 5-fluorouracil: Long-term outcomes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;146(2):276–284.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brauker JH, Carr-Brendel VE, Martinson LA, et al. Neovascularization of synthetic membranes directed by membrane microarchitecture. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995;29:1517–1524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeCroos FC, Ahmad S, Kondo Y, et al. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane alters tissue response to implanted Ahmed glaucoma valve. Curr Eye Res. 2009;34:562–567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bensen CV, Vann RD, Koger KE, et al. Quantification of gas denucleation and thrombogenicity of vascular grafts. J Biomed Mater Res. 1991;25:373–386.
   Google Scholar
• Madras PN, Ward CA, Johnson WR. Enhanced thromboresistance of surfaces by denucleation. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs. 1980;26:153–158.
   Google Scholar
• Ritter EF, Vann RD, Wyble C, et al. Hydrostatic pressure reduces thrombogenicity of polytetrafluoroethylene vascular grafts. Am J Physiol. 1989;257:H1076–H1081.
   Google Scholar
• Prata JA, Jr., Mermoud A, LaBree L, et al. In vitro and in vivo flow characteristics of glaucoma drainage implants. Ophthalmology. 1995;102:894–904.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brubaker RF. Flow of aqueous humor in humans [The Friedenwald Lecture]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1991;32(13):3145–3166.
   Google Scholar
• Pan T, Stay MS, Barocas VH, et al. Modeling and characterization of a valved glaucoma drainage device with implications for enhanced therapeutic efficacy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2005;52:948–951.
   Google Scholar
• Francis BA, Cortes A, Chen J, et al. Characteristics of glaucoma drainage implants during dynamic and steady-state flow conditions. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1708–1714.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenberg DL, Koo EY, Hafner G, et al. In vitro flow properties of glaucoma implant devices. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1999;30:662–667.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman AL, Hill R, Wilson MR, et al. Initial clinical experience with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Am J Ophthalmol. 1995;120:23–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayyala RS, Zurakowski D, Smith JA, et al. A clinical study of the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in advanced glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1968–1976.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar