Comparison of Silicone- and Porous-Plate Ahmed Glaucoma Valves

References

• Ashburn FS, Netland PA. The evolution of glaucoma drainage implants. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2018;13:498–500. doi:10.4103/jovr.jovr_26_18
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arora KS, Robin AL, Corcoran KJ, Corcoran SL, Ramulu PY. Use of various glaucoma surgeries and procedures in Medicare beneficiaries from 1994 to 2012. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(8):1615–1624. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.04.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Netland PA. The Ahmed glaucoma valve in neovascular glaucoma (An AOS Thesis).. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2009;107:325–342.
   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. Ophthalmology. 1992;99(10):1512–1519. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(92)31772-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishida K, Netland PA, Costa VP, Shiroma L, Khan B, Ahmed IIK. Comparison of polypropylene and silicone Ahmed glaucoma valves. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(8):1320–1326. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.04.020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Netland PA. Ahmed Glaucoma valve model M4. In: Samples JR, Ahmed IIK, editors. Surgical Innovations in Glaucoma. New York, NY: Springer; 2014:223–225.
   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(7):562–567. doi:10.1080/02713680902963167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeCroos FC, Kondo Y, Mordes D, et al. In vitro fluid dynamics of the Ahmed glaucoma valve modified with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene. Curr Eye Res. 2011;36(2):112–117. doi:10.3109/02713683.2010.512115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dozier C, Allingham RR, Asrani S, et al. Quantifying outflow resistance of a modified glaucoma valve in vivo. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:E–abstract 32.
   Google Scholar
• Kim J, Allingham RR, Hall J, Klitzman B, Stinnett S, Asrani S. Clinical experience with a novel glaucoma drainage implant. J Glaucoma. 2014;23:e91–e97. doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e3182955d73
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu WD, Pro MJ, Fudemberg SJ, Moster MR. Explantation of the novel Ahmed glaucoma valve M4 implant. J Glaucoma. 2015;24(2):e1–e4. doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000000192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cvintal V, Moster MR, Shyu AP, et al. Initial experience with the new Ahmed glaucoma valve model M4: short term results. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(5):e475–e480. doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000000324
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gil-Carrasco F, Jiménez-Román J, Turati-Acosta M, Bello-López Portillo H, Isida-Llerandi CG. Comparative study of the safety and efficacy of the Ahmed glaucoma valve model M4 (high density porous polyethylene) and the model S2 (polypropylene) in patients with neovascular glaucoma. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2016;91:409–414. doi:10.1016/j.oftal.2016.02.009
   Google Scholar
• Sluch I, Gudgel B, Dvorak J, et al. Clinical Experience with the M4 Ahmed glaucoma drainage implant. J Curr Glaucoma Pract. 2017;11(3):92–96. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10028-1231
   Google Scholar
• Boyle JWIV, JR M, PA N. Surgical technique 3 (Ahmed glaucoma valve drainage implant). In: Shaarawy TM, Sherwood MB, Hitchings RA, Crowston JG, editors. Glaucoma. 2nd ed. London: Elsevier Saunders; 2015:1071–1080.
   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. doi:10.1001/archopht.117.2.233
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ayyala RS, Michelini-Norris B, Flores A, Haller E, Margo CE. Comparison of different biomaterials for glaucoma drainage devices: part 2. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:1081–1084. doi:10.1001/archopht.118.8.1081
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hinkle DM, Zurakowski D, Ayyala RS. A Comparison of the Polypropylene Plate Ahmed ™ Glaucoma Valve to the Silicone Plate Ahmed ™ Glaucoma Flexible Valve. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2007;17:696–701. doi:10.1177/112067210701700502
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackenzie PJ, Schertzer RM, Isbister CM. Comparison of silicone and polypropylene Ahmed glaucoma valves: two-year follow-up. Can J Ophthalmol. 2007;42(2):227–232. doi:10.3129/canjophthalmol
   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. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(9):1514–1520. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.04.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brasil MVOM, Rockwood EJ, Smith SD. Comparison of silicone and polypropylene Ahmed glaucoma valve implants. J Glaucoma. 2007;16(1):36–41. doi:10.1097/01.ijg.0000243477.82779.31
   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 histopathological correlation. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(11):2198–2206. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00803-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCluskey P, Molteno A, Wakefield D, Di Girolamo N. Otago Glaucoma surgery outcome study: the pattern of expression of MMPs and TIMPs in Bleb capsules surrounding Molteno implants. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50(5):2161–2164. doi:10.1167/iovs.08-2063
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law SK, Kornmann HL, Giaconi JA, Kwong A, Tran E, Caprioli J. Early aqueous suppressant therapy on hypertensive phase following glaucoma drainage device procedure: a randomized prospective trial. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(3):248–257. doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000000131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar