Glaucoma drainage devices: state of the art

References

• Rollet M. Le drainage au irin de la chambre anterieure contre l’hypertonie et al douleur. Rev. Gen. Ophthalmol.25, 481 (1906).
   Google Scholar
• Zorab A. The reduction of tension in chronic glaucoma. Ophthalmoscope10, 258 (1912).
   Google Scholar
• Stefansson J. An operation for glaucoma. Am. J. Ophthalmol.8, 681–692 (1925).
   Google Scholar
• Muldoon WE, Ripple PH, Wilder HC. Platinum implant in glaucoma surgery. Arch. Ophthalmol.45, 666 (1951).
   Google Scholar
• Tronsco MU. Use of tantalum implants for inducing a permanent hypotony in rabbit eyes. Am. J. Ophthalmol.32, 499–508 (1949).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bock RH. Subconjunctival drainage of the anterior chamber by a glass seton. Am. J. Ophthalmol.33, 929 (1950).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Epstein E. Fibrosis response to aqueous. Its relationship to glaucoma. Br. J. Ophthalmol.43, 641–647 (1959).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Molteno ACB. New implant for draining in glaucoma. Br. J. Ophthalmol.53, 609 (1969).
   Google Scholar
• Molteno AC, Straughan JL, Ancker E. Long tube implants in the management of glaucoma. S. Afr. Med. J.50, 1062–1066 (1976).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Krupin T, Podas SM, Becker B, Newkirk JB. Valve implants in filtering surgery. Am. J. Ophthalmol.81, 232–235 (1976).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman AL, Hill R, Wilson MR et al. Initial clinical experience with the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve implant. Am. J. Ophthalmol.120, 23–31 (1995).
   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. Ophthalmology105, 1968–1976 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang MC, Netland PA, Coleman AL et al. Intermediate-term clinical experience with the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve implant. Am. J. Ophthalmol.127, 27–33 (1999).
   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.128, 198–204 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molteno ACB. The optimal design of drainage implants for glaucoma. Trans. Ophthalmol. Soc. NZ33, 29–41 (1981).
   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
• Heuer DK, Lloyd MA, Abrams DA et al. Which is better? One or two: a randomized clinical trial of single-plate versus double-plate molteno implantation for glaucomas in aphakia and pseudophakia. Ophthalmology99, 1512–1519 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britt MT, LaBree LD, Lloyd MA et al. Randomized clinical trial of the 350-mm2 versus the 500-mm2 Baerveldt implant: longer term results: is bigger better? Ophthalmology106, 2312–2318 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith MF, Sherwood MB, McGorray SP. Comparison of the double-plate Molteno drainage implant with the Schocket procedure. Arch. Ophthalmol.110, 1246–1250 (1992).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith SL, Starita RJ, Fellman RL, Lynn JR. Early clinical experience with the Baerveldt 350-mm2 glaucoma implant and associated extraocular muscle imbalance. Ophthalmology100, 914–918 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd MA, Baerveldt G, Fellenbaum PS et al. Intermediate-term results of a randomized clinical trial of the 350- versus the 500-mm2 Baerveldt implant. Ophthalmology101, 1456–1463 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegner SW, Netland PA, Urban RC et al. Clinical experience with the Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant. Ophthalmology102, 1298–1307 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molteno ACB, Polkinghorne PJ, Bowbyes JA. The Vicryl tie technique for inserting a drainage implant in the treatment of secondary glaucoma. Aust. N Z J. Ophthalmol.14, 343–354 (1986).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sherwood MB, Smith MF. Prevention of early hypotony associated with Molteno implants by a new occluding stent technique. Ophthalmology100, 85–90 (1993).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Egbert PR, Lieberman MF. Internal suture occlusion of the Molteno glaucoma implant for the prevention of postoperative hypotony. Ophthalmic Surg.20, 53–56 (1989).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Price FW Jr, Whitson WE. Polypropylene ligatures as a means of controlling intraocular pressure with Molteno implants. Ophthalmic Surg.20, 781–783 (1989).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Latina MA. Single-stage Molteno implant with combination internal occlusion and external ligature. Ophthalmic Surg.21, 444–446 (1990).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Petitti DB. Advanced Issues in Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis, and Cost-Effective Analysis: Methods for Quantitative Synthesis in Medicine. Oxford University Press, NY, USA,75–93 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Brown RD, Cairns JE. Experience with the Molteno long tube implant. Trans. Opthalmol. Soc. UK103, 297–312 (1983).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Freedman J. The use of the single-stage Molteno long-tube seton in treating resistant cases of glaucoma. Ophthalmol. Surg.16, 480–483 (1985).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goldberg I. Management of uncontrolled glaucoma with the Molteno system. Aust. N Z J. Ophthalmol.15, 97–107 (1987).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ward WJ, Cooper RL. Molteno tube implants: long-term results. Aust. N Z J. Ophthalmol.15, 109–112 (1987).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Downes RN, Flanagan DW, Jordan K et al. The Molteno implant in intractable glaucoma. Eye2, 250–259 (1988).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoare Nairne JE, Sherwood D, Jacob JS et al. Single-stage insertion of the Molteno tube for glaucoma and modifications to reduce postoperative hypotony. Br. J. Ophthalmol.72, 846–851 (1988).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Minckler DS, Heuer DK, Hasty B et al. Clinical experience with the single-stage Molteno implant in complicated glaucomas. Ophthalmology95, 1181–1188 (1988).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traverso CE, Tomey KF, al-Kaff A. The long-tube single plate Molteno implant for the treatment of recalcitrant glaucoma. Int. Ophthalmol.13, 159–162 (1989).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Airaksinen PJ, Aisala P, Tuulonen A. Molteno implant surgery in uncontrolled glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol.68, 690–694 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melamed S, Cahane M, Gutman I et al. Postoperative complications after Molteno implant surgery. Am. J. Ophthalmol.111, 319–322 (1991).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• El-Sayyad F, El-Maghraby A, Helal M et al. The use of releasable sutures in Molteno glaucoma implant procedures to reduce postoperative hypotony. Ophthalmic Surg.22, 82–84 (1991).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Freedman J, Rubin B. Molteno implants as a treatment for refractory glaucoma in black patients. Arch. Ophthalmol.109, 1417–1420 (1991).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lotufo DG. Postoperative complications and visual loss following Molteno implantation. Ophthalmic Surg.22, 650–656 (1991).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Freedman J. Clinical experience with the Molteno dual-chamber single-plate implant. Ophthalmic Surg.23, 238–241 (1992).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lloyd MA, Sedlak T, Heuer DK et al. Clinical experience with the single-plate Molteno implant in complicated glaucomas. Update of a pilot study. Ophthalmology99, 679–687 (1992).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson RP, Cantor L, Katx LJ et al. Aqueous shunts: Molteno versus Schocket. Ophthalmology99, 672–676 (1992).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mermoud A, Salmon JF, Straker C et al. Use of the single-plate Molteno implant in refractory glaucoma. Ophthalmologica205, 113–120 (1992).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bluestein EC, Stewart WC. Trabeculectomy with 5-fluorouracil vs single-plate Molteno implantation. Ophthalmic Surg.24, 669–673 (1993).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Neelakantan A, Rao BS, Vijaya L et al. Single-plate Molteno implants in complicated glaucomas: results, survival rates, and complications. Indian J. Ophthalmol.42, 193–197 (1994).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stewart WC, Connor AB, Pitts RA. Prognostic factors and postoperative course following single-plate Molteno implantation. Doc. Ophthalmol.86, 409–417 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price FW Jr, Wellemeyer M. Long-term results of Molteno implants. Ophthalmic Surg.26, 130–135 (1995).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Verdonck C, Van de Velde T, Zeyen T. Clinical experience with the single-plate Molteno drainage implant. Bull. Soc. Belge Ophtalmol.225, 27–32 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Mills RP, Reynolds A, Emond MJ et al. Long-term survival of Molteno glaucoma drainage devices. Ophthalmology103, 299–305 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broadway DC, Iester M, Schulzer M, Douglas GR. Survival analysis for success of Molteno tube implants. Br. J. Ophthalmol.85, 689–695 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molteno AV, Bevin TH, Herbison P, Houliston MJ. Otago Glaucoma Surgery Outcome Study. Ophthalmology108, 2193–2200 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aung T, Seah SK. Glaucoma drainage implants in Asian eyes. Ophthalmology105, 2117–2122 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kee C. Prevention of early postoperative hypotony by partial ligation of silicone tube in Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation. J. Glaucoma10, 466–469 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson MR, Mendis U, Smith SD, Paliwal A. Ahmed glaucoma valve implant vs trabeculectomy in the surgical treatment of glaucoma: a randomized clinical trial. Am. J. Ophthalmol.130, 267–273 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kook MS, Yoon J, Kim J, Lee MS. Clinical results of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in refractory glaucoma with adjunctive mitomycin-C. Ophthalmic Surg. Lasers31, 100–106 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lai JS, Poon AS, Chua Jk et al. Efficacy and safety of the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in Chinese eyes with complicated glaucoma. Br. J. Ophthalmol.84, 718–721 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayyala RS, Zurakowski D, Monshizadeh R et al. Comparison of double-plate Molteno and Ahmed glaucoma valve in patients with advanced uncontrolled glaucoma. Ophthalmic Surg. Lasers33, 94–101 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lloyd MA, Baerveldt G, Heuer DK et al. Initial clinical experience with the Baerveldt implant in complicated glaucomas. Ophthalmology101, 640–650 (1994).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith MF, Doyle JW, Sherwood MB. Comparison of the Baerveldt glaucoma implant with the double-plated Molteno drainage implant. Arch. Ophthalmol.113, 444–447 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodkin MJ, Goldblatt WS, Burgoyne CF et al. Early clinical experience with the Baerveldt implant in complicated glaucomas. Am. J. Ophthalmol.120, 32–40 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen QH, Budenz DL, Parrish RK II. Complications of Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implants. Arch. Ophthalmol.116, 571–575 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Krishna R, Godfrey DG, Budenz DL et al. Intermediate-term outcomes for 350-mm2 Baerveldt glaucoma implants. Ophthalmology108, 621–626 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Krupin eye valve filtering surgery study group: Krupin eye valve with disk for filtration surgery. Ophthalmology101, 651–658 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fellenbaum PS, Almeida AR, Minckler DS et al. Krupin disk implantation for complicated glaucomas. Ophthalmology101, 1178–1182 (1994).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fleiss JL. The Comparison of Proportions from Several Independent Samples in Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. John Wiley & Sons, NY, USA,138–159 (1981).
   Google Scholar
• Piantadosi S. Overviews/Meta-Analyses in Clinical Trials: A Methodologic Perspective. John Wiley & Sons, NY, USA,419–431 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Hill RA, Pirouzian A, Liaw L. Pathophysiology of and prophylaxis against late Ahmed glaucoma valve oclusion. Am. J. Ophthalmol.129, 608–612 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hong CH, Arosemena 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
• 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, 38–45 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsai JC, Johnson CC, Dietrich MS. The Ahmed shunt versus the Baerveldt shunt for refractory glaucoma: a single-surgeon comparison of outcome. Ophthalmology110, 1814–1821 (2003).
   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.2, CD004918 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Ayyala RS, Harman LE, Stevens SX, Haller E. Comparison of different biomaterials for the glaucoma drainage devices. Arch. Ophthalmol.117, 233–236 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ayyala RS, Margo CE, Michelini-Norris MB et al. Comparison of different biomaterials for the glaucoma drainage devices: part 2. Arch. Ophthalmol.118, 1081–1084 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Molteno ACB, Dempster AG. Methods of controlling bleb fibrosis around draining implants. In: Glaucoma: Proceedings of Fourth International Symposium of the North Eye Institute, Manchester, UK. Mills KB (Ed.). Pergamon Press Inc, NY, USA,192–211 (1988).
   Google Scholar
• Teng CC, Chi HH, Katzin HM. Histology and mechanism of filtering operations. Am. J. Ophthalmol.47, 16–34 (1959).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schocket SS. Investigations of the reasons for success and failure in the anterior shunt-to-the-encircling-band procedure in the treatment of refractory glaucoma. Trans. Am. Ophthalmol. Soc.84, 743–798 (1986).
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Molteno ACB, Straughan JL, Ancker E. Control of bleb fibrosis after glaucoma surgery by anti-inflammatory agents. S. Afr. Med. J.50, 881–885 (1976).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang L, Eaton JW. Fibrin(ogen) mediates acute inflammatory responses to biomaterials. J. Exp. Med.178, 2147–2156 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law KS, Nguyen A, Coleman AL, Caprioli J. Comparison of safety and efficacy between silicone and polypropylene Ahmed glaucoma valves in refractory glaucoma. Ophthalmology112, 1514–1520 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hinkle DH, Zurakowski D, Ayyala RS. A comparison of the polypropylene plate Ahmed™ glaucoma valve to the silicone plate Ahmed™ glaucoma flexible valve. Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Abstract, FL, USA, May (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Jacob-Labarre JT, McKinnon SJ, Tanji T. Biocompatibilty response to modified Baerveldt glaucoma drains. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.37(Suppl.), 1164 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Ayyala RS, Parma SE, Karcioglu ZA. Optic nerve changes following posterior insertion of glaucoma drainage device in a rabbit model. J. Glaucoma13(2), 145–148 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leen MM, Witkop GS, George DP. Anatomic considerations in the implantation of the Ahmed glaucoma valve. Arch. Ophthalmol.114, 223–224 (1996).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ayyala RS, Layden WE, Slonim CB, Margo CE. Anatomic and histopathologic findings following a failed Ahmed glaucoma valve device. Ophthalmic Surg. Lasers32, 248–249 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kahook MY, Noecker RJ, Pantcheva MB, Schuman JS. Location of glaucoma drainage devices relative to the optic nerve. Br. J. Ophthalmol. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2006.091272 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Perkins TW, Cardakli UF, Eisele JR et al. Adjunctive mitomycin-C in Molteno implant surgery. Ophthalmology102, 91–97 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins TW, Gangnon R, Ladd W et al. Molteno implant with mitomycin-C: intermediate results. J. Glaucoma7, 86–92 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Susanna R, Nicolela MT, Takahashi WY. Mitomycin-C as adjunctive therapy with glaucoma implant surgery. Ophthalmic Surg.25, 458–462 (1994).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cantor L, Burgoyne J, Sanders S et al. The effect of mitomycin-C on Molteno implant surgery: 1-year randomized masked study. J. Glaucoma7, 240–246 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee D, Shih DH, Birt CM et al. The effect of adjunctive mitomycin C in Molteno implant surgery. Ophthalmology104, 2126–2135 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rapuano CJ, Schmidt CM, Cohen EJ et al. Results of alloplastic tube shunt procedures before, during, or after penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea14, 26–32 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beebe W, Starita R, Fellman RL, Lynn JR, Gelender H. The use of Molteno implant and anterior chamber tube shunt to encircling band for the treatment of glaucoma in keratoplasty patients. Ophthalmology97, 1414–1422 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayyala RS, Pieroth L, Vinals AF et al. Comparison of mitomycin-C trabeculectomy, glaucoma drainage devices and laser Nd:YAG cyclophotocoagulation in the management of intractable glaucoma following keratoplasty. Ophthalmology105, 1550–1556 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkness CM. Penetrating keratoplasty, glaucoma and silicone drainage tubing. Dev. Ophthalmol.14, 161–165 (1987).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bigar F, Witmer R. Corneal endothelial changes in primary acute angle-closure glaucoma. Ophthalmology89, 596–599 (1982).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svedberg B. Effects of artificial intraocular pressure elevation on the corneal endothelium in the vervet monkey. Acta Ophthalmol.53, 839–855 (1975).
   Google Scholar
• McDermott ML, Swendris RP, Shin DH et al. Corneal endothelial cell counts after Molteno implantation. Am. J. Ophthalmol.115, 93–96 (1993).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lloyd MA, Heuer DK, Baerveldt DC. Combined Molteno implantation and parsplana vitrectomy for neovascular glaucomas. Ophthalmology981, 1401–1405 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Varma R, Heuer DK, Lundy DC. Parsplana Baerveldt tube insertion with vitrectomy in glaucomas associated with pseudophakia and aphakia. Am. J. Ophthalmol.119, 401–407 (1995).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sidoti PA, Mosny AY, Ritterband DC, Seedor JA. Parsplana tube insertion of glaucoma drainage implants and penetrating keratoplasty in patients with coexisting glaucoma and corneal diseases. Ophthalmology108, 1050–1058 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joos KM, Lavina TA, Agarwal A. Posterior repositioning of glaucoma implants for anterior segment complications. Ophthalmology108, 279–284 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyska A, Glovinsky Y, Belkin M, Epstein Y. Biocompatibility of the Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma drainage implant. J. Glaucoma12(3), 275–280 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wamsley S, Moster MR, Rai S, Alvim HS, Fontanarosa J. Results of the use of the Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma implant in technically challenging, advanced glaucoma cases: a clinical pilot study. Am. J. Ophthalmol.138(6), 1049–1051 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart RM, Diamond JG, Ashmore ED, Ayyala RS. Complications following ex-press glaucoma shunt implantation. Am. J. Ophthalmol.140(2), 340–341 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahan E, Carmichael TR. Implantation of a miniature glaucoma device under a scleral flap. J. Glaucoma14(2), 98–102 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blake DA, Clinton AD, Galler KE et al. Inhibition of cell proliferation by mitomycin C incorporated into P(HEMA) hydrogels: mitomycin C in a P(HEMA) matrix – a novel slow release drug delivery system to decrease encapsulation/fibrosis following glaucoma drainage device implantation: an in vitro test of efficacy. J. Glaucoma (In press).
   Google Scholar
• Vadgama P. Surface biocompatibility. Annual Reports on the Progress of Chemistry, Section C: Physical Chemistry101, 14–52 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Rosiak JM, Yoshii F. Hydrogels and their medical applications. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B151, 56–64 (1999).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pompe W, Worch H, Epple M et al. Functionally graded materials for biomedical applications. Mater. Sci. Eng. A362(1–2), 40–60 (2003).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kholodovych V, Smith RJ, Knight D, Abramson S, Kohn J, Wels JW. Accurate prediction of celluar response using QSPR: a feasibility test of rational design of polymeric biomaterials. Polymer4, 7367–7379 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Puskas JE, Chen Y. Biomedical application of commercial polymers and novel polyisobutylene-based thermoplastic elastomers for soft tissue replacement. Biomacromolecules5(4), 1141–1154.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tang L, Hu W. Molecular determinants of biocompatibility. Expert Rev. Med. Devices2(4), 493–500 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shintani H. Modification of polymer surfaces of medical devices to prevent infections. Biocontrol Sci.10(1&2), 3–11 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Wang A, Cao T, Tang H et al. Immobilization of polysaccharides on a fluorinated silicone surface. Colloids Surf. B: Biointerfaces47, 57–63 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaci M, Touati N, Setnescu R, Zaharescu T, Setnescu T, Jipa S. Grafting of hindered amine stabilizer in poly(propylene) films under γ-irradiation. Macromolecular Mater. Eng.290(8), 802–808 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Svorcik V, Hnatowicz V, Stopka P et al. Amino acids grafting of Ar+ ions modified PE. Radiation Physics and Chemistry60(1–2), 89–93 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Tan BW, Zhang Y. Surface modification of gold and quantum dot nanoparticles with chitosan for bioapplicatons. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A75A(1), 56–62 (2005).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zahr SA, Villiers de M, Pishko VM. Encapsulation of drug nanoparticles in self-assembled macromolecular nanoshells. Langmuir21, 403–410 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung AH, Kato K, Ohhashi S, Nagamune T. Casual cell surface remodeling using biocompatible lipid poly(ethylene glycol)(n): development of stealth cells and monitoring of cell membrane behavior in serum supplemented conditions J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A70A(2), 179–185 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Moghimi SM. Chemical camouflage of nanospheres with a poorly reactive surface: towards development of stealth and target-specific nanocarriers. Biochim. Biophys Acta1590, 131–139 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osada Y, Gong JP. Soft and wet materials: polymer gels. Adv. Mater.10(11), 827–837 (1998).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okano T. Biorelated Polymers and Gels: Controlled Release and Applications in Biomedical Engineering. Academic Press, CA, USA,1–135 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Peppas AN, Buresa P, Leobandunga W, Ichikawa H. Hydrogels in pharmaceutical formulations. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm.50, 27–46 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molteno ACB, Fucik M, Dempster AG, Bevin TH. Otago glaucoma surgery outcome study: factors controlling capsule fibrosis around Molteno implants with histological correlation. Ophthalmology110, 2198–2206 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar