Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 Jul 28;7(7):CD004918.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004918.pub3.

Aqueous shunts for glaucoma

Victoria L Tseng  1 , Anne L Coleman, Melinda Y Chang, Joseph Caprioli
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Aqueous shunts for glaucoma

Victoria L Tseng et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Aqueous shunts are employed to control intraocular pressure (IOP) for people with primary or secondary glaucomas who fail or are not candidates for standard surgery.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of aqueous shunts for reducing IOP in glaucoma compared with standard surgery, another type of aqueous shunt, or modification to the aqueous shunt procedure.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to August 2016), Embase.com (1947 to August 2016), PubMed (1948 to August 2016), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to August 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 15 August 2016, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 15 August 2016. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 August 2016. We also searched the reference lists of identified trial reports and the Science Citation Index to find additional trials.

Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials that compared various types of aqueous shunts with standard surgery or to each other in eyes with glaucoma.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened search results for eligibility, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data from included trials. We contacted trial investigators when data were unclear or not reported. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We followed standard methods as recommended by Cochrane.

Main results: We included 27 trials with a total of 2099 participants with mixed diagnoses and comparisons of interventions. Seventeen studies reported adequate methods of randomization, and seven reported adequate allocation concealment. Data collection and follow-up times varied.Four trials compared an aqueous shunt (Ahmed or Baerveldt) with trabeculectomy, of which three reported one-year outcomes. At one-year, the difference in IOP between aqueous shunt groups and trabeculectomy groups was uncertain (mean difference (MD) 2.55 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.78 to 5.87; 380 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The difference in logMAR visual acuity was also uncertain (MD 0.12 units, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.31; 380 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In two trials, the difference in visual field score was uncertain (MD -0.25, 95% CI -1.91 to 1.40; 196 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The mean number of antiglaucoma medications was higher in the aqueous shunt group than the trabeculectomy group in one trial (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.12; 184 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect on needing additional glaucoma surgery was uncertain between groups in two trials (risk ratio (RR) 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.36; 329 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In one trial, fewer total adverse events were reported in the aqueous shunt group than the trabeculectomy group (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.81; 212 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trial reported quality-of-life outcomes at one-year follow-up.Two trials that compared the Ahmed implant with the Baerveldt implant for glaucoma found higher mean IOP in the Ahmed group at one-year follow-up (MD 2.60 mmHg, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.62; 464 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The difference in logMAR visual acuity was uncertain between groups (MD -0.07 units, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.13; 501 participants; low-certainty evidence). The MD in number of antiglaucoma medications was within one between groups (MD 0.35, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.59; 464 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). More participants in the Ahmed group required additional glaucoma surgery than the Baerveldt group (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.02 to 7.54; 514 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The two trials reported specific adverse events but not overall number of adverse events. Neither trial reported visual field or quality-of-life outcomes at one-year follow-up.One trial compared the Ahmed implant with the Molteno implant for glaucoma over two-year follow-up. Mean IOP was higher in the Ahmed group than the Molteno group (MD 1.64 mmHg, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.43; 57 participants; low-certainty evidence). The differences in logMAR visual acuity (MD 0.08 units, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.40; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and mean deviation in visual field (MD -0.18 dB, 95% CI -3.13 to 2.77; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence) were uncertain between groups. The mean number of antiglaucoma medications was also uncertain between groups (MD -0.38, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.27; 57 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report the proportion needing additional glaucoma surgery, total adverse events, or quality-of-life outcomes.Two trials compared the double-plate Molteno implant with the Schocket shunt for glaucoma; one trial reported outcomes only at six-month follow-up, and the other did not specify the follow-up time. At six-months, mean IOP was lower in the Molteno group than the Schocket group (MD -2.50 mmHg, 95% CI -4.60 to -0.40; 115 participants; low-certainty evidence). Neither trial reported the proportion needing additional glaucoma surgery, total adverse events, or visual acuity, visual field, or quality-of-life outcomes.The remaining 18 trials evaluated modifications to aqueous shunts, including 14 trials of Ahmed implants (early aqueous suppression versus standard medication regimen, 2 trials; anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent versus none, 4 trials; corticosteroids versus none, 2 trials; shunt augmentation versus none, 3 trials; partial tube ligation versus none, 1 trial; pars plana implantation versus conventional implantation, 1 trial; and model M4 versus model S2,1 trial); 1 trial of 500 mm2 Baerveldt versus 350 mm2 Baerveldt; and 3 trials of Molteno implants (single-plate with oral corticosteroids versus single-plate without oral corticosteroids, 1 trial; double-plate versus single-plate, 1 trial; and pressure-ridge versus double-plate with tube ligation, 1 trial).

Authors' conclusions: Information was insufficient to conclude whether there are differences between aqueous shunts and trabeculectomy for glaucoma treatment. While the Baerveldt implant may lower IOP more than the Ahmed implant, the evidence was of moderate-certainty and it is unclear whether the difference in IOP reduction is clinically significant. Overall, methodology and data quality among existing randomized controlled trials of aqueous shunts was heterogeneous across studies, and there are no well-justified or widely accepted generalizations about the superiority of one surgical procedure or device over another.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3
3
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Aqueous shunts versus trabeculectomy for glaucoma, Outcome 1 Mean intraocular pressure.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Aqueous shunts versus trabeculectomy for glaucoma, Outcome 2 Intraocular pressure outcomes at 1 year follow‐up.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Aqueous shunts versus trabeculectomy for glaucoma, Outcome 3 Intraocular pressure outcomes at 3 years follow‐up.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Aqueous shunts versus trabeculectomy for glaucoma, Outcome 4 Intraocular pressure outcomes at 5 years follow‐up.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Aqueous shunts versus trabeculectomy for glaucoma, Outcome 5 Mean difference in logMAR visual acuity.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Aqueous shunts versus trabeculectomy for glaucoma, Outcome 6 Mean change in visual field.
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Aqueous shunts versus trabeculectomy for glaucoma, Outcome 7 Mean antiglaucoma medications.
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Aqueous shunts versus trabeculectomy for glaucoma, Outcome 8 Need for reoperation to control glaucoma progression.
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Aqueous shunts versus trabeculectomy for glaucoma, Outcome 9 Complications at 1 year follow‐up.
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 Aqueous shunts versus trabeculectomy for glaucoma, Outcome 10 Complications at 3 years follow‐up.
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 Aqueous shunts versus trabeculectomy for glaucoma, Outcome 11 Complications at 4 years follow‐up.
1.12
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1 Aqueous shunts versus trabeculectomy for glaucoma, Outcome 12 Complications at 5 years follow‐up.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Ahmed implant versus 350 mm2 Baerveldt implant for glaucoma, Outcome 1 Mean intraocular pressure.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Ahmed implant versus 350 mm2 Baerveldt implant for glaucoma, Outcome 2 Mean logMAR visual acuity.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Ahmed implant versus 350 mm2 Baerveldt implant for glaucoma, Outcome 3 Mean number of antiglaucoma medications.
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Ahmed implant versus 350 mm2 Baerveldt implant for glaucoma, Outcome 4 Need for reoperation to control glaucoma progression.
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Ahmed implant versus 350 mm2 Baerveldt implant for glaucoma, Outcome 5 Complications at 1 year follow‐up.
2.6
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2 Ahmed implant versus 350 mm2 Baerveldt implant for glaucoma, Outcome 6 Complications at 3 years follow‐up.
2.7
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2 Ahmed implant versus 350 mm2 Baerveldt implant for glaucoma, Outcome 7 Complications at 5 years follow‐up.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Ahmed implant versus single‐plate Molteno implant for glaucoma, Outcome 1 Mean intraocular pressure at 2 years follow‐up.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Ahmed implant versus single‐plate Molteno implant for glaucoma, Outcome 2 Intraocular pressure outcomes at 2 years follow‐up.
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Ahmed implant versus single‐plate Molteno implant for glaucoma, Outcome 3 Mean logMAR visual acuity at 2 years follow‐up.
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 Ahmed implant versus single‐plate Molteno implant for glaucoma, Outcome 4 Visual field mean deviation at 2 years follow‐up.
3.5
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3 Ahmed implant versus single‐plate Molteno implant for glaucoma, Outcome 5 Mean number of antiglaucoma medications at 2 years follow‐up.
3.6
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3 Ahmed implant versus single‐plate Molteno implant for glaucoma, Outcome 6 Complications at 2 years follow‐up.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Double‐plate Molteno implant versus Schocket shunt for glaucoma, Outcome 1 Mean intraocular pressure at 6 months follow‐up.
4.2
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Double‐plate Molteno implant versus Schocket shunt for glaucoma, Outcome 2 Complications at 6 to 12 months follow‐up.
5.1
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 Ahmed implant with early aqueous suppression versus Ahmed implant with standard medication regimen for glaucoma, Outcome 1 Mean intraocular pressure.
5.2
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 Ahmed implant with early aqueous suppression versus Ahmed implant with standard medication regimen for glaucoma, Outcome 2 Mean logMAR visual acuity.
5.3
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5 Ahmed implant with early aqueous suppression versus Ahmed implant with standard medication regimen for glaucoma, Outcome 3 Mean antiglaucoma medications.
6.1
6.1. Analysis
Comparison 6 Ahmed implant with anti‐VEGF versus Ahmed implant alone for glaucoma, Outcome 1 Mean intraocular pressure.
6.2
6.2. Analysis
Comparison 6 Ahmed implant with anti‐VEGF versus Ahmed implant alone for glaucoma, Outcome 2 Mean antiglaucoma medications.
7.1
7.1. Analysis
Comparison 7 Ahmed implant with intravitreal triamcinolone versus Ahmed implant alone for neovascular glaucoma, Outcome 1 Mean intraocular pressure at 1 year follow‐up.
7.2
7.2. Analysis
Comparison 7 Ahmed implant with intravitreal triamcinolone versus Ahmed implant alone for neovascular glaucoma, Outcome 2 Complete success at 1 year follow‐up.
7.3
7.3. Analysis
Comparison 7 Ahmed implant with intravitreal triamcinolone versus Ahmed implant alone for neovascular glaucoma, Outcome 3 Mean antiglaucoma medications at 1 year follow‐up.
7.4
7.4. Analysis
Comparison 7 Ahmed implant with intravitreal triamcinolone versus Ahmed implant alone for neovascular glaucoma, Outcome 4 Complications at 1 year follow‐up.
8.1
8.1. Analysis
Comparison 8 Ahmed implant with shunt augmentation versus Ahmed implant without shunt augmentation for glaucoma, Outcome 1 Mean intraocular pressure.
8.2
8.2. Analysis
Comparison 8 Ahmed implant with shunt augmentation versus Ahmed implant without shunt augmentation for glaucoma, Outcome 2 Intraocular pressure outcomes at 6 months follow‐up.
8.3
8.3. Analysis
Comparison 8 Ahmed implant with shunt augmentation versus Ahmed implant without shunt augmentation for glaucoma, Outcome 3 Intraocular pressure outcomes at 1 year follow‐up.
8.4
8.4. Analysis
Comparison 8 Ahmed implant with shunt augmentation versus Ahmed implant without shunt augmentation for glaucoma, Outcome 4 Postoperative hypertensive phase.
8.5
8.5. Analysis
Comparison 8 Ahmed implant with shunt augmentation versus Ahmed implant without shunt augmentation for glaucoma, Outcome 5 Mean antiglaucoma medications at 6 months follow‐up.
8.6
8.6. Analysis
Comparison 8 Ahmed implant with shunt augmentation versus Ahmed implant without shunt augmentation for glaucoma, Outcome 6 Complications at 6 months follow‐up.
8.7
8.7. Analysis
Comparison 8 Ahmed implant with shunt augmentation versus Ahmed implant without shunt augmentation for glaucoma, Outcome 7 Complications at 1 year follow‐up.
9.1
9.1. Analysis
Comparison 9 Ahmed implant with partial tube ligation versus Ahmed implant with no ligation for glaucoma, Outcome 1 Mean intraocular pressure at 6 months follow‐up.
9.2
9.2. Analysis
Comparison 9 Ahmed implant with partial tube ligation versus Ahmed implant with no ligation for glaucoma, Outcome 2 Intraocular pressure outcomes at 6 months follow‐up.
9.3
9.3. Analysis
Comparison 9 Ahmed implant with partial tube ligation versus Ahmed implant with no ligation for glaucoma, Outcome 3 Complications at 6 months follow‐up.
10.1
10.1. Analysis
Comparison 10 Pars plana versus conventional Ahmed implant for glaucoma with penetrating keratoplasty, Outcome 1 Mean intraocular pressure at 2 years follow‐up.
10.2
10.2. Analysis
Comparison 10 Pars plana versus conventional Ahmed implant for glaucoma with penetrating keratoplasty, Outcome 2 Intraocular pressure outcomes at 2 years follow‐up.
10.3
10.3. Analysis
Comparison 10 Pars plana versus conventional Ahmed implant for glaucoma with penetrating keratoplasty, Outcome 3 Visual acuity improvement of 2 lines or more on Snellen chart at 2 years follow‐up.
10.4
10.4. Analysis
Comparison 10 Pars plana versus conventional Ahmed implant for glaucoma with penetrating keratoplasty, Outcome 4 Complications at 2 years follow‐up.
11.1
11.1. Analysis
Comparison 11 Ahmed model M4 versus Ahmed model S2 for neovascular glaucoma, Outcome 1 Mean intraocular pressure at 1 year follow‐up.
11.2
11.2. Analysis
Comparison 11 Ahmed model M4 versus Ahmed model S2 for neovascular glaucoma, Outcome 2 Visual acuity between 20/20 and 20/100 at 1 year follow‐up.
11.3
11.3. Analysis
Comparison 11 Ahmed model M4 versus Ahmed model S2 for neovascular glaucoma, Outcome 3 Complications 1 day after surgery.
12.1
12.1. Analysis
Comparison 12 500 mm2 Baerveldt implant versus 350 mm2 Baerveldt implant for non‐neovascular glaucoma, Outcome 1 Mean intraocular pressure.
12.2
12.2. Analysis
Comparison 12 500 mm2 Baerveldt implant versus 350 mm2 Baerveldt implant for non‐neovascular glaucoma, Outcome 2 Intraocular pressure outcomes.
12.3
12.3. Analysis
Comparison 12 500 mm2 Baerveldt implant versus 350 mm2 Baerveldt implant for non‐neovascular glaucoma, Outcome 3 Complications at 5 years follow‐up.
13.1
13.1. Analysis
Comparison 13 Single‐plate Molteno implant with oral corticosteroids versus single‐plate Molteno implant alone for glaucoma, Outcome 1 Mean intraocular pressure at 6 months follow‐up.
13.2
13.2. Analysis
Comparison 13 Single‐plate Molteno implant with oral corticosteroids versus single‐plate Molteno implant alone for glaucoma, Outcome 2 Intraocular pressure outcomes at 6 months follow‐up.
13.3
13.3. Analysis
Comparison 13 Single‐plate Molteno implant with oral corticosteroids versus single‐plate Molteno implant alone for glaucoma, Outcome 3 Visual acuity within 1 Snellen line or improved at 6 months follow‐up.
13.4
13.4. Analysis
Comparison 13 Single‐plate Molteno implant with oral corticosteroids versus single‐plate Molteno implant alone for glaucoma, Outcome 4 Mean antiglaucoma medications at 6 months follow‐up.
13.5
13.5. Analysis
Comparison 13 Single‐plate Molteno implant with oral corticosteroids versus single‐plate Molteno implant alone for glaucoma, Outcome 5 Need for reoperation to control glaucoma progression.
13.6
13.6. Analysis
Comparison 13 Single‐plate Molteno implant with oral corticosteroids versus single‐plate Molteno implant alone for glaucoma, Outcome 6 Complications at 6 months follow‐up.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

ABC 2011 {published data only}
    1. Barton K, Feuer WJ, Budenz DL, Schiffman J, Costa VP, Godfrey DG, et al. Three‐year treatment outcomes in the Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study. Ophthalmology 2014;121(8):1547‐57. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barton K, Gedde SJ, Budenz DL, Feuer WJ, Schiffman J. The Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study methodology, baseline patient characteristics, and intraoperative complications. Ophthalmology 2011;118(3):435‐42. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Budenz DL, Barton K, Feuer WJ, Schiffman J, Costa VP, Godfrey DG, et al. Treatment outcomes in the Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study after 1 year of follow‐up. Ophthalmology 2011;118(3):443‐52. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Budenz DL, Barton K, Gedde SJ, Feuer WJ, Schiffman J, Costa VP, et al. Five‐year treatment outcomes in the Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study. Ophthalmology 2015;122(2):308‐16. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Budenz DL, Feuer WJ, Barton K, Schiffman J, Costa VP, Godfrey DG, et al. Postoperative complications in the Ahmed Baerveldt Comparison Study during five years of follow‐up. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2016;163:75‐82. - PMC - PubMed
Arcieri 2015 {published data only}
    1. Arcieri ES, Paula JS, Jorge R, Barella KA, Arcieri RS, Secches DJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravitreal bevacizumab in eyes with neovascular glaucoma undergoing Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation: 2‐year follow‐up. Acta Ophthalmologica 2015;93(1):1‐6. - PubMed
AVB 2011 {published data only}
    1. Christakis PG, Kalenak JW, Zurakowski D, Tsai JC, Kammer JA, Harasymowycz PJ, et al. The Ahmed Versus Baerveldt study: one‐year treatment outcomes. Ophthalmology 2011;118(11):2180‐9. - PubMed
    1. Christakis PG, Tsai JC, Kalenak JW, Zurakowski D, Cantor LB, Kammer JA, et al. The Ahmed Versus Baerveldt study: three‐year treatment outcomes. Ophthalmology 2013;120(11):2232‐40. - PubMed
    1. Christakis PG, Tsai JC, Zurakowski D, Kalenak JW, Cantor LB, Ahmed II. The Ahmed Versus Baerveldt study: design, baseline patient characteristics, and intraoperative complications. Ophthalmology 2011;118(11):2172–9. - PubMed
Britt 1999 {published data only}
    1. Britt MT, LaBree LD, Lloyd MA, Minckler DS, Heuer DK, Baerveldt G, et al. Randomized clinical trial of the 350‐mm2 versus the 500‐mm2 Baerveldt implant: longer term results. Is bigger better?. Ophthalmology 1999;106(12):2312‐8. - PubMed
    1. Lloyd MA, Baerveldt G, Fellenbaum PS, Sidoti PA, Minckler DS, Martone JF, et al. Intermediate‐term results of a randomized clinical trial of the 350‐mm2 versus 500‐mm2 Baerveldt implant. Ophthalmology 1994;101(8):1456‐64. - PubMed
Desai 2013 {published data only}
    1. Desai RU, Singh K, Lin SC. Intravitreal ranibizumab as an adjunct for Ahmed valve surgery in open‐angle glaucoma: a pilot study. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2013;41(2):155‐8. - PubMed
Gerber 1997 {published data only}
    1. Gerber SL, Cantor LB, Sponsel WE. A comparison of postoperative complications from pressure‐ridge Molteno implants versus Molteno implants with suture ligation. Ophthalmic Surgery and Lasers 1997;28(11):905‐10. - PubMed
Gil‐Carrasco 2016 {published data only}
    1. Gil‐Carrasco F, Jiminez‐Roman J, Turati‐Acosta M, Bello‐Lopez 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. Archivos de la Sociedad Espanola de Oftalmologia 2016;91(9):409‐14. - PubMed
Heuer 1992 {published data only}
    1. Heuer DK, Lloyd MA, Abrams DA, Baerveldt G, Minckler DS, Lee MB, 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):1512‐9. - PubMed
Hwang 2004 {published data only}
    1. Hwang JM, Kee C. The effect of surface area expansion with pericardial membrane (Preclude) in Ahmed glaucoma valve implant surgery. Journal of Glaucoma 2004;13(4):335‐9. - PubMed
Kee 2001 {published data only}
    1. Kee C. Prevention of early postoperative hypotony by partial ligation of silicone tube in Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation. Journal of Glaucoma 2001;10(6):466‐9. - PubMed
Law 2016 {published data only}
    1. 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. Journal of Glaucoma 2016;25(3):248‐57. - PubMed
Mahdy 2013 {published data only}
    1. Mahdy RA, Nada WM, Fawzy KM, Alnashar HY, Almosalamy SM. Efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab with panretinal photocoagulation followed by Ahmed valve implantation in neovascular glaucoma. Journal of Glaucoma 2013;22(9):768‐72. - PubMed
Nassiri 2010 {published data only}
    1. Nassiri N, Kamali G, Rahnavardi M, Mohammadi B, Nassiri S, Rahmani L, et al. Ahmed glaucoma valve and single‐plate Molteno implants in treatment of refractory glaucoma: a comparative study. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2010;149(6):893‐902. - PubMed
Pakravan 2007 {published data only}
    1. Pakravan M, Homayoon N, Shahin Y, Ali Reza BR. Trabeculectomy with mitomycin C versus Ahmed glaucoma implant with mitomycin C for treatment of pediatric aphakic glaucoma. Journal of Glaucoma 2007;16(7):631‐6. - PubMed
Pakravan 2014 {published data only}
    1. Pakravan M, Rad SS, Yazdani S, Ghahari E, Yaseri M. Effect of early treatment with aqueous suppressants on Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation outcomes. Ophthalmology 2014;121(9):1693‐8. - PubMed
Parihar 2016 {published data only}
    1. Parihar JK, Jain VK, Kaushik J, Mishra A. Pars plana‐modified versus conventional Ahmed glaucoma valve in patients undergoing penetrating keratoplasty: a prospective comparative randomized study. Current Eye Research 2017;42(3):436‐42. - PubMed
Rho 2015 {published data only}
    1. Rho S, Sung Y, Ma KT, Rho SH, Kim CY. Bleb analysis and short‐term results of biodegradable collagen matrix‐augmented Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation: 6‐month follow‐up. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2015;56(10):5896‐903. - PubMed
Rojo‐Arnao 2011 {published data only}
    1. Rojo‐Arnao M, Albis‐Donado OD, Lliteras‐Cardin M, Kahook MY, Gil‐Carrasco F. Adjunctive bevacizumab in patients undergoing Ahmed valve implantation: a pilot study. Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging 2011;42(2):132‐7. - PubMed
Smith 1992 {published data only}
    1. Smith MF, Sherwood MB. A comparison of the Molteno implant to the ACTSEB (Schocket) procedure in the treatment of refractory glaucomas. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 1990;31:ARVO Abstract 1343.
    1. Smith MF, Sherwood MB, McGorray SP. Comparison of the double‐plate Molteno drainage implant with the Schocket procedure. Archives of Ophthalmology 1992;110(9):1246‐50. - PubMed
Teixeira 2012 {published data only}
    1. Teixeira SH, Doi LM, Freitas Silva AL, Silva KD, Paes ÂT, Higa FS, et al. Silicone Ahmed glaucoma valve with and without intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide for neovascular glaucoma: randomized clinical trial. Journal of Glaucoma 2012;21(5):342‐8. - PubMed
TVT 2009 {published data only}
    1. Gedde SJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, Budenz DL, Feuer WJ, Schiffman JC. Surgical complications in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study during the first year of follow‐up. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2007;143(1):23‐31. - PubMed
    1. Gedde SJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, Budenz DL, Feuer WJ, Schiffman JC, et al. Postoperative complications in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) Study during five years of follow‐up. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2012;153(5):804‐14. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, Budenz DL. Treatment outcomes in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study after one year of follow‐up. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2007;143(1):9‐22. - PubMed
    1. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, Budenz DL, et al. Three‐year follow‐up of the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2009;148(5):670‐84. - PubMed
    1. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD, Budenz DL, et al. Treatment outcomes in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) Study after five years of follow‐up. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2012;153(5):789‐803. - PMC - PubMed
Valimaki 1999 {published data only}
    1. Valimaki J, Airaksinen PJ, Tuulonen A, Risteli J. Postoperative systemic corticosteroid treatment and Molteno implant surgery: a randomized clinical trial. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica 1999;77(1):50‐6. - PubMed
Wilson 1992 {published data only}
    1. Wilson RP, Cantor L, Katz J, Schmidt CM, Steinmann WC, Allee S. Aqueous shunts. Molteno versus Schocket. Ophthalmology 1992;99(5):672‐8. - PubMed
    1. Wilson RP, Katz LJ, Cantor LB. Aqueous shunts: Molteno v. Schocket. American Academy of Ophthalmology. 1991:160. - PubMed
Wilson 2000 {published data only}
    1. Wilson MR, Mendis U, Smith SD, Paliwal A. Ahmed glaucoma valve implant vs trabeculectomy in the surgical treatment of glaucoma: a randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2000;130(3):267‐73. - PubMed
Wilson 2003 {published data only}
    1. Wilson MR, Mendis U, Paliwal A, Haynatzka V. Long‐term follow‐up of primary glaucoma surgery with Ahmed glaucoma valve implant versus trabeculectomy. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2003;136(3):464‐70. - PubMed
Yazdani 2016 {published data only}
    1. Yazdani S, Mahboobipour H, Pakravan M, Doozandeh A, Ghahari E. Adjunctive mitomycin C or amniotic membrane transplantation for Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Glaucoma 2016;25(5):415‐21. - PubMed
Yuen 2011 {published data only}
    1. Yuen D, Buys Y, Jin YP, Alasbali T, Smith M, Trope GE. Corticosteroids versus NSAIDs on intraocular pressure and the hypertensive phase after Ahmed glaucoma valve surgery. Journal of Glaucoma 2011;20(7):439‐44. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Bettis 2015 {published data only}
    1. Bettis DI, Morshedi RG, Chaya C, Goldsmith J, Crandall A, Zabriskie N. Trabeculectomy with mitomycin C or Ahmed valve implantation in eyes with uveitic glaucoma. Journal of Glaucoma 2015;24(8):591‐9. - PubMed
El Gendy 2012 {published data only}
    1. Gendy NM, Song JC. Long term comparison between single stage Baerveldt and Ahmed glaucoma implants in pediatric glaucoma. Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology 2012;26(3):323‐6. - PMC - PubMed
El Sayed 2013 {published data only}
    1. Sayed Y, Awadein A. Polypropylene vs silicone Ahmed valve with adjunctive mitomycin C in paediatric age group: a prospective controlled study. Eye 2013;27(6):728‐34. - PMC - PubMed
Goulet 2008 {published data only}
    1. Goulet RJ 3rd, Phan AD, Cantor LB, WuDunn D. Efficacy of the Ahmed S2 glaucoma valve compared with the Baerveldt 250‐mm2 glaucoma implant. Ophthalmology 2008;115(7):1141‐7. - PubMed
Lankaranian 2008 {published data only}
    1. Lankaranian D, Reis R, Henderer JD, Choe S, Moster MR. Comparison of single thickness and double thickness processed pericardium patch graft in glaucoma drainage device surgery: a single surgeon comparison of outcome. Journal of Glaucoma 2008;17(1):48‐51. - PubMed
Law 2005 {published data only}
    1. 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):1514‐20. - PubMed
Martino 2015 {published data only}
    1. Martino AZ, Iverson S, Feuer WJ, Greenfield DS. Surgical outcomes of superior versus inferior glaucoma drainage device implantation. Journal of Glaucoma 2015;24(1):32‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Pakravan 2009 {published data only}
    1. Pakravan M, Yazdani S, Shahabi C, Yaseri M. Superior versus inferior Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation. Ophthalmology 2009;116(2):208‐13. - PubMed
Poels 2013 {published data only}
    1. Poels MM, Niessen AG, Waard PW, Lemij HG. Surgical outcomes of the Baerveldt glaucoma implant: differences between surgical techniques in the Rotterdam Eye Hospital. Journal of Glaucoma 2013;22(5):363‐8. - PubMed
Rachmiel 2008 {published data only}
    1. Rachmiel R, Trope GE, Buys YM, Flanagan JG, Chipman ML. Intermediate‐term outcome and success of superior versus inferior Ahmed Glaucoma Valve implantation. Journal of Glaucoma 2008;17(7):584‐90. - PubMed
Robert 2013 {published data only}
    1. Robert MC, Pomerleau V, Harissi‐Dagher M. Complications associated with Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 and glaucoma drainage devices. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2013;97(5):573‐7. - PubMed
Rososinski 2015 {published data only}
    1. Rososinski A, Wechsler D, Grigg J. Retrospective review of pars plana versus anterior chamber placement of Baerveldt glaucoma drainage device. Journal of Glaucoma 2015;24(2):95‐9. - PubMed
Shen 2011 {published data only}
    1. Shen CC, Salim S, Du H, Netland PA. Trabeculectomy versus Ahmed Glaucoma Valve implantation in neovascular glaucoma. Clinical Ophthalmology 2011;5:281‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Suhr 2012 {published data only}
    1. Suhr AW, Lim MC, Brandt JD, Izquierdo JC, Willits N. Outcomes of fornix‐based versus limbus‐based conjunctival incisions for glaucoma drainage device implant. Journal of Glaucoma 2012;21(8):523‐9. - PubMed
Taglia 2002 {published data only}
    1. Taglia DP, Perkins TW, Gangnon R, Heatley GA, Kaufman PL. Comparison of the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve, the Krupin Eye Valve with disk, and the double‐plate Molteno implant. Journal of Glaucoma 2002;11(4):347‐53. - PubMed
Thompson 2013 {published data only}
    1. Thompson AM, Molteno AC, Bevin TH, Herbison P. Otago glaucoma surgery outcome study: comparative results for the 175‐mm2 Molteno3 and double‐plate Molteno implants. JAMA Ophthalmology 2013;131(2):155‐9. - PubMed
Tran 2009 {published data only}
    1. Tran DH, Souza C, Ang MJ, Loman J, Law SK, Coleman AL, et al. Comparison of long‐term surgical success of Ahmed Valve implant versus trabeculectomy in open‐angle glaucoma. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2009;93(11):1504‐9. - PubMed
Trubnik 2015 {published data only}
    1. Trubnik V, Zangalli C, Moster MR, Chia T, Ali M, Martinez P, et al. Evaluation of risk factors for glaucoma drainage device‐related erosions: a retrospective case‐control study. Journal of Glaucoma 2015;24(7):498‐502. - PubMed
Tsai 2006 {published data only}
    1. 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. Ophthalmology 2006;113(6):913‐7. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Chen 1998 {published data only}
    1. Chen PC, Schuman JS, Mattox C, Weiss HS, Krug JH, Gross FJ, et al. A randomized prospective clinical trial comparing surface‐modified with standard Krupin valves with disk. American Academy of Ophthalmology 1998:150.
ChiCTR‐TRC‐09000744 {published data only}
    1. ChiCTR‐TRC‐09000744. Glaucoma drainage device with and without adjunctive intra‐bleb injection of triamcinolone acetonide: a randomized controlled trial. www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=8792 (accessed 15 December 2016).
Fenton 1993 {published data only}
    1. Fenton RM, Rubin BI, Smet MD, Whitcup SW, Nussenblatt RB. A prospective study of 5‐FU trabeculectomy vs single plate Molteno implant in patients with panuveitis complicated by glaucoma refractory to prior therapy. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 1993; Vol. 34:ARVO E‐Abstract 978.
NCT00453024 {published data only}
    1. NCT00453024. Imaging Ahmed glaucoma tubes with a pericardial graft and tissue glue or partial‐thickness scleral flap and sutures. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00453024 (accessed 15 December 2016).
NCT00491712 {published data only}
    1. NCT00491712. Comparison of efficacy between silicone Ahmed glaucoma valves with and without intravitreal triamcinolone injection. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00491712 (accessed 15 December 2016).
NCT00644280 {published data only}
    1. NCT00644280. Evaluation of safety and efficacy of ranibizumab in glaucoma patients treated with filtration tubes. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00644280 (accessed 15 December 2016).
NCT00665756 {published data only}
    1. NCT00665756. Comparison of efficacy between silicone Ahmed glaucoma valves and second trabeculectomy in glaucoma patients. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00665756 (accessed 15 December 2016).
NCT01301378 {published data only}
    1. NCT01301378. Comparison of porcine submucosal tissue patch graft (KeraSys) versus processed pericardium patch graft (Tutoplast) in glaucoma drainage implant surgery using a Molteno 3 shunt. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01301378 (accessed 15 December 2016).
Rodrigues 2006 {published data only}
    1. Rodrigues AM, Corpa MV, Mello PA. Comparison between trabeculectomy with mitomycin C and drainage implants in primary congenital glaucoma: a randomized study. American Academy of Ophthalmology. 2006.

References to ongoing studies

ChiCTR‐IOR‐16008954 {published data only}
    1. ChiCTR‐IOR‐16008954. Repeat trabeculectomy versus Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation of primary open angle glaucoma with failed initial trabeculectomy. www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=15067 (accessed 18 September 2016).
ChiCTR‐IPR‐15006695 {published data only}
    1. ChiCTR‐IPR‐15006695. Adjunctive with intravitreal injection of ranibizumab before Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in the treatment of neovascular glaucoma: a prospective randomized controlled study. www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=11369 (accessed 18 September 2016).
NCT00666237 {published data only}
    1. NCT00666237. Primary tube versus trabeculectomy study. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00666237 (accessed 19 October 2016).
NCT01159314 {published data only}
    1. NCT01159314. Baerveldt Plate Area Comparison (BPAC). clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01159314 (accessed 18 September 2016).
NCT01494974 {published data only}
    1. NCT01494974. Comparison of the Ahmed glaucoma valve FP7 and FP8 in pediatric glaucoma: a randomized clinical trial. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01494974 (accessed 14 September 2016).
NCT01535768 {published data only}
    1. NCT01535768. Effect of prophylactic aqueous suppression on hyperencapsulation of Ahmed glaucoma valves. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01535768 (accessed 19 October 2016).
NCT01551550 {published data only}
    1. NCT01551550. Amniotic membrane versus pericardium in reducing glaucoma drainage tube exposure: a randomized clinical trial. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01551550 (accessed 11 October 2016).
NCT01883856 {published data only}
    1. NCT01883856. Comparison of silicone and porous plate Ahmed glaucoma valves. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01883856 (accessed 11 October 2016).
NCT01915706 {published data only}
    1. NCT01915706. The effect of scheduled ripcord removal on the outcomes of Baerveldt 350 implants. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01915706 (accessed 12 September 2016).
NCT02084745 {published data only}
    1. NCT02084745. Timing of glaucoma drainage device implantation with Boston keratoprosthesis surgery. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02084745 (accessed 18 September 2016).
NCT02088528 {published data only}
    1. NCT02088528. The Ghana Primary Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02088528 (accessed 12 September 2016).
NTR1142 {published data only}
    1. NTR1142. Primary Baerveldt glaucoma implant versus trabeculectomy study. www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1142 (accessed 11 October 2016).

Additional references

AAO 2010
    1. American Academy of Ophthalmology Glaucoma Panel. Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines. Primary open‐angle glaucoma. San Francisco (CA): American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2010. Available at: www.aao.org/ppp. - PubMed
Alvarado 2008
    1. Alvarado JA, Hollander DA, Juster RP, Lee LC. Ahmed valve implantation with adjunctive mitomycin C and 5‐fluorouracil: long‐term outcomes. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2008;146(2):276‐84. - PubMed
Caprioli 2011
    1. Caprioli J. The tube versus trabeculectomy study: why its findings may not change clinical practice?. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2011;151(5):742‐4. - PubMed
Chen 2015
    1. Chen A, Yu F, Law SK, Giaconi JA, Coleman AL, Caprioli J. Valved glaucoma drainage devices in pediatric glaucoma: retrospective long‐term outcomes. JAMA Ophthalmology 2015;133(9):1030‐5. - PubMed
Chen 2016
    1. Chen MF, Kim CH, Coleman AL. Cyclodestructive procedures for refractory glaucoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012223] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
CNTGSG 1998a
    1. Collaborative Normal Tension Glaucoma Study Group. Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal‐tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1998;126(4):487‐97. - PubMed
CNTGSG 1998b
    1. Collaborative Normal Tension Glaucoma Study Group. The effectiveness of intraocular pressure reduction in the treatment of normal‐tension glaucoma. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1998;126(4):498‐505. - PubMed
Congdon 2004
    1. Congdon N, O'Colmain B, Klaver CC, Klein R, Munoz B, Freidman DS, et al. Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Archives of Ophthalmology 2004;122(4):477‐85. - PubMed
Deeks 2011
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG, editor(s). Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Desai 2011
    1. Desai MA, Gedde SJ, Feuer WJ, Shi W, Chen PP, Parrish RK 2nd. Practice preferences for glaucoma surgery: a survey of the American Glaucoma Society in 2008. Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging 2011;42(3):202‐8. - PubMed
Djodeyre 2001
    1. Djodeyre MR, Peralta Calvo J, Abelairas Gomez J. Clinical evaluation and risk factors of time to failure of Ahmed Glaucoma Valve implant in pediatric patients. Ophthalmology 2001;108(3):614‐20. - PubMed
FFSSG 1996
    1. The Fluorouracil Filtering Surgery Study Group. Five‐year follow‐up of the fluorouracil filtering surgery study. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1996;121(4):349‐66. - PubMed
Fontana 2006a
    1. Fontana H, Nouri‐Mahdavi K, Lumba J, Ralli M, Caprioli J. Trabeculectomy with mitomycin C: outcomes and risk factors for failure in phakic open‐angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2006;113(6):930‐6. - PubMed
Fontana 2006b
    1. Fontana H, Nouri‐Mahdavi K, Caprioli J. Trabeculectomy with mitomycin C in pseudophakic patients with open‐angle glaucoma: outcomes and risk factors for failure. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2006;141(4):652‐9. - PubMed
Foo 2015
    1. Foo VHX, Perera SA, Htoon HM, Welsbie DS. Aqueous shunts with mitomycin C versus aqueous shunts alone for glaucoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 9. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011875] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Gordon 2002
    1. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open‐angle glaucoma. Archives of Ophthalmology 2002;120(6):714‐20. - PubMed
GRADEpro 2014 [Computer program]
    1. GRADE Working Group, McMaster University. GRADEpro. Version accessed 10 October 2016. Hamilton (ON): GRADE Working Group, McMaster University, 2014.
Gujral 2005
    1. Gujral S, Nouri‐Mahdavi K, Caprioli J. Outcomes of small‐incision cataract surgery in eyes with preexisting Ahmed Glaucoma Valves. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2005;140(5):911‐3. - PubMed
Guyatt 2011
    1. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction ‐ GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(4):383‐94. - PubMed
HaiBo 2015
    1. HaiBo T, Xin K, ShiHeng L, Lin L. Comparison of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation and trabeculectomy for glaucoma: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. PLoS ONE 2015;10(2):e0118142. - PMC - PubMed
Heijl 2002
    1. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Hussein M, et al. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Archives of Ophthalmology 2002;120(10):1268‐79. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JAC, editor(s). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Hoffman 2002
    1. Hoffman KB, Feldman RM, Budenz DL, Gedde JS, Chacra GA, Schiffman JC. Combined cataract extraction and Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implant: indications and outcomes. Ophthalmology 2002;109(10):1916‐20. - PubMed
Hollander 2010
    1. Hollander DA, Giaconi JA, Holland GN, Yu F, Caprioli J, Aldave AJ, et al. Graft failure after penetrating keratoplasty in eyes with Ahmed valves. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2010;150(2):169‐78. - PubMed
Huang 1999
    1. Huang MC, Netland PA, Coleman AL, Siegner SW, Moster MR, Hill RA. Intermediate‐term clinical experience with the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve implant. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1999;127(1):27‐33. - PubMed
Hwang 2015
    1. Hwang HB, Han JW, Yim HB, Lee NY. Beneficial effects of adjuvant intravitreal bevacizumab injection on outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in patients with neovascular glaucoma: systematic literature review. Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2015;31(4):198‐203. - PubMed
Jampel 2012
    1. Jampel HD, Solus JF, Tracey PA, Gilbert DL, Loyd TL, Jefferys JL, et al. Outcomes and bleb‐related complications of trabeculectomy. Ophthalmology 2012;119(4):712‐22. - PubMed
Jones 2011
    1. Jones L, Smith O, Yousuf SJ, Kwagyan J. Cyclodestructive procedures for glaucoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 9. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009313] - DOI
Joshi 2005
    1. Joshi AB, Parrish RK 2nd, Feuer WF. 2002 survey of the American Glaucoma Society: practice preferences for glaucoma surgery and antifibrotic use. Journal of Glaucoma 2005;14(2):172‐4. - PubMed
Krishna 2001
    1. Krishna R, Godfrey DG, Budenz DL, Escalona‐Camaaño E, Gedde SJ, Greenfield DS, et al. Intermediate‐term outcomes of 350‐mm(2) Baerveldt glaucoma implants. Ophthalmology 2001;108(3):621‐6. - PubMed
Law 2009
    1. Law SK, Coleman AL, Caprioli J. Dynamic tube movement of Ahmed glaucoma valve. Journal of Glaucoma 2009;18(8):628‐31. - PubMed
Leske 2003
    1. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Komaroff E, et al. Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Archives of Ophthalmology 2003;121(1):48‐56. - PubMed
Lloyd 1989
    1. Lloyd MA, Heuer DK, Baerveldt G, Minckler DS, Martone JF, Lean JS, et al. Combined Molteno implantation and pars plana vitrectomy for neovascular glaucomas. Ophthalmology 1991;98(9):1401‐5. - PubMed
Mills 1996
    1. Mills RP, Reynolds A, Emond MJ, Barlow WE, Leen MM. Long‐term survival of Molteno glaucoma drainage devices. Ophthalmology 1996;103(2):299‐305. - PubMed
Minckler 1988
    1. Minckler DS, Heuer DK, Hasty B, Baerveldt G, Cutting RC, Barlow WE. Clinical experience with the single‐plate Molteno implant in complicated glaucomas. Ophthalmology 1998;95(9):1181‐8. - PubMed
Molteno 1981
    1. Molteno AC. The optimal design of drainage implants for glaucoma. Transactions of the Ophthalmological Society of New Zealand 1981;33:39‐41. - PubMed
Molteno 2001
    1. Molteno AC, Bevin TH, Herbison P, Houliston MJ. Otago glaucoma surgery outcome study: long‐term follow‐up of cases of primary glaucoma with additional risk factors drained by Molteno implants. Ophthalmology 2001;108(12):2193‐200. - PubMed
Molteno 2003
    1. Molteno AC, 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):2198‐206. - PubMed
Ou 2009
    1. Ou Y, Yu F, Law SK, Coleman AL, Caprioli J. Outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in children with primary congenital glaucoma. Archives of Ophthalmology 2009;127(11):1436‐41. - PubMed
Prata 1995a
    1. Prata JA Jr, Mermoud A, LaBree L, Minckler DS. In vitro and In vivo flow characteristics of glaucoma drainage implants. Ophthalmology 1995;102(6):894‐904. - PubMed
Prata 1995b
    1. Prata JA Jr, Santos RCR, LaBree L, Minckler DS. Surface area of glaucoma implants and perfusion flow rates in rabbit eyes. Glaucoma 1995;4(4):274‐80. - PubMed
Prata 1996
    1. Prata JA Jr, Minckler DS, Mermoud A, Baerveldt G. Effects of mitomycin‐C on the function of Baerveldt glaucoma drainage implants in rabbits. Glaucoma 1996;5:29‐38. - PubMed
Quigley 2006
    1. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2006;90(3):262‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Ramulu 2007
    1. Ramulu PY, Corcoran KJ, Corcoran SL, Robin AL. Utilization of various glaucoma surgeries and procedures in Medicare beneficiaries from 1995 to 2004. Ophthalmology 2007;114(12):2265‐70. - PubMed
Review Manager 5 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Schocket 1982
    1. Schocket SS, Lakhanpal V, Richards RD. Anterior chamber tube shunt to an encircling band in the treatment of neovascular glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1982;89(10):1188‐94. - PubMed
Sidoti 1994
    1. Sidoti PA, Minckler DS, Baerveldt G, Lee PP, Heuer DK. Aqueous tube shunt to a pre‐existing episcleral encircling element in the treatment of complicated glaucomas. Ophthalmology 1994;101(6):1036‐43. - PubMed
Souza 2007
    1. Souza C, Tran DH, Loman J, Law SK, Coleman AL, Caprioli J. Long‐term outcomes of Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation in refractory glaucomas. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2007;144(6):893‐900. - PubMed
Supawavej 2013
    1. Supawavej C, Nouri‐Mahdavi K, Law SK, Caprioli J. Comparison of results of initial trabeculectomy with mitomycin C after prior clear‐corneal phacoemulsification to outcomes in phakic eyes. Journal of Glaucoma 2013;22(1):52‐9. - PubMed
Syed 2004
    1. 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. Journal of Glaucoma 2004;13(1):38‐45. - PubMed
Wang 2015
    1. Wang X, Khan R, Coleman A. Device‐modified trabeculectomy for glaucoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010472.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Zahid 2013
    1. Zahid S, Musch DC, Niziol LM, Lichter PR, Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study Group. Risk of endophthalmitis and other long‐term complications of trabeculectomy in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS). American Journal of Ophthalmology 2013;155(4):674‐80. - PMC - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Minckler 2004
    1. Minckler D, Ayyala R, Francis B, Mathew MC. Aqueous shunts for glaucoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004918] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Minckler 2006
    1. Minckler DS, Vedula SS, Li TJ, Mathew MC, Ayyala RS, Francis BA. Aqueous shunts for glaucoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004918.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Minckler 2009
    1. Minckler D, Vedula SS, Li T, Mathew M, Ayyala R, Francis B. Aqueous shunts for glaucoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004918.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types