Reversible Venting Stitch for Fenestrating Valve-less Glaucoma Shunts.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this is to describe a venting stitch modification for valveless glaucoma aqueous shunts and characterize early postoperative intraocular pressure (IOP) and glaucoma medication use following the modification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 61 sequential patients undergoing Baerveldt glaucoma implant (BGI)-350 implantation at the Doheny Eye Institute. Twenty-four patients received a glaucoma shunt with venting stitch modification (modified BGI) and 37 patients received an unmodified shunt (BGI-only). IOP, number of glaucoma medications, and number of hypotony cases (intraocular pressure ≤5 mm Hg) were compared between the groups. T-tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: At postoperative-day 1, mean IOP was significantly lower compared with preoperatively in the modified BGI group (14 mm Hg; reduced by 51%; P<0.0001) but not the BGI-only group (27 mm Hg; P=0.06). IOP difference between groups persisted till immediately before tube opening (P=0.005) and fewer IOP-lowering medications needed in the modified BGI group (P<0.0001). One case (4.2%) of postoperative hypotony was encountered with BGI modification, which resolved after the stitch was removed in clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The venting stitch valveless shunt modification allows for effective, reliable, and safe control of early postoperative IOP.

Glaucoma surgical considerations for PROSE lens use in patients with ocular surface disease.

PURPOSE: To examine challenges of Prosthetic Replacement of the Ocular Surface Ecosystem (PROSE) treatment in patients with glaucoma drainage implants (GDI) and the surgical management of patients where both GDI and PROSE treatment are indicated. METHODS: A retrospective noncomparative observational study was performed to investigate the outcomes of 7 eyes of 6 patients that required PROSE lens wear and GDI implantation. RESULTS: Group A consisted of 2 cases where PROSE lens wear was problematic due to scleral surface irregularities following GDI placement. These included changes in surface morphology caused by the elevated scleral patch graft tissue adjacent to the corneal limbus in one case and the presence of two anteriorly located shunts in the other. Group B consisted of 3 eyes where the previously placed GDI led to poor lens alignment due to the proximity of the lens edge to the scleral graft. Group C consisted of 2 cases where both patients underwent placement of the GDI in the pars plana and insertion of the drainage tube 3-3.5mm from the limbus in order to facilitate PROSE lens use. The posterior location of the tube and patch allowed for proper PROSE device alignment over the ocular surface. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical considerations and prior planning for GDI placement allows PROSE lens use for management of ocular surface disease. Pars plana tube placement with a posteriorly placed patch graft, instead of anterior chamber tube positioning with more anterior graft, enables adequate lens wear in scleral-lens-dependent patients.