Safety and Efficacy of an Affordable Glaucoma Drainage Device Implantation (AADI) in Refractory Glaucoma
Habiba Sultana *
Glaucoma Department, Deep Eye Care Foundation, Rangpur, Bangladesh.
Bipul Kumer De Sarker
Glaucoma Department, Ispahani Islamia Eye Institute & Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Khairul Islam
Cataract Department, Deep Eye Care Foundation, Rangpur, Bangladesh.
Md. Sajidul Huq
Training & Research Department, Deep Eye Care Foundation, Rangpur, Bangladesh.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Aims: This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of implanting an affordable glaucoma drainage device in patients with refractory glaucoma.
Methodology: A prospective longitudinal study was conducted involving 30 patients diagnosed with refractory glaucoma who underwent implantation of the Aurolab Aqueous Drainage Implant (AADI) at Ispahani Islamia Eye Institute and Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh between November 2021 and April 2022. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon using a consistent technique. Patients were followed up for three months postoperatively. Outcome measures included postoperative intraocular pressure (IOP), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), the number of anti-glaucoma medications, and post-surgery complications. Complete success was defined as an IOP between ≥5 and ≤21 mm Hg, without the need for additional glaucoma medications.
Results: The majority of the patients were male (56.7%), while females comprised 43.3%. The mean age was 24.97 (±16.5). A significant decrease in the mean preoperative IOP from 31.67 (±9.8) mmHg to 12.7 (±4.0) mmHg was observed at the three-month follow-up, with a mean percentage reduction of 59.9% (P value <0.001). The mean number of preoperative topical anti-glaucoma medications (AGM) decreased from 3.17 (±0.59) to 0.17 (±0.53) at the three-month follow-up. Visual acuity remained stable in 10 (33.3%) eyes, improved in 9 (30%) eyes, and deteriorated in 11 (36.7%) eyes. Complications occurred in 4 patients (13.3%), including hyphema in 1 (3.3%) patient, choroidal detachment (CD) in 1 (3.3%) patient, and choroidal detachment with retinal detachment in 2 (6.6%) patients. The overall success rate was 96.6%.
Conclusion: The non-valved affordable glaucoma drainage device (AADI) demonstrated safety and efficacy in patients with refractory glaucoma, exhibiting good intraocular pressure control. Further follow-up is recommended to assess sustainability over time.
Keywords: Glaucoma Drainage Device (GDD), refractory glaucoma, Aurolab Aqueous Drainage Implant (AADI)
How to Cite
Downloads
References
Nassiri N, Kamali G, Rahnavardi M, Mohammadi B, Nassiri S, Rahmani L, Nassiri N. Ahmed glaucoma valve and single-plate Molteno implants in treatment of refractory glaucoma: a comparative study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010 Jun;149(6): 893-902.
Pathak Ray V, Rao DP. Surgical Outcomes of a New Low-Cost Non-valved Glaucoma Drainage Device in Refractory Glaucoma: Results at 1 Year. J Glaucoma. 2018 May;27(5):433-439.
Awad-Allah MAA, Mousa AS, Ashour DM. The outcomes of a low-cost, non-valved glaucoma drainage device using mitomycin-C: 1-year results. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2023;261:2343–2349.
Singh P, Kuldeep K, Tyagi M, Sharma PD, Kumar Y. Glaucomadraiage devices. JCOR 2013;1:77‑82.
Budenz D, Barton K, Feuer W, et al. Treatment outcomes in the Ahmed Baerveldt comparison study after 1 year of follow-up. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:443–452 DOI:10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.07.016
Rathi SG, Seth NG, Kaur S, Thattaruthody F, Kaushik S, Raj S, Pandav SS, Ram J. A prospective randomized controlled study of Aurolab aqueous drainage implant versus Ahmed glaucoma valve in refractory glaucoma: A pilot study. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2018 Nov;66(11):1580-1585.
Christakis PG, Kalenak JW, Tsai JC, Zurakowski D, Kammer JA, Harasymowycz PJ, Mura JJ, Cantor LB, Ahmed II. The Ahmed Versus Baerveldt Study: Five-Year Treatment Outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2016 Oct;123(10):2093-102.
Elbaklish KH, Saleh SM, Gomaa WA. Baerveldt Glaucoma Implant versus Ahmed Glaucoma Implant in a One-Year Follow Up, Comparative Study. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020 Jan 8;14:29-39.
Musa I, Bansal S, Kaleem MA. Barriers to Care in the Treatment of Glaucoma: Socioeconomic Elements That Impact the Diagnosis, Treatment, and Outcomes in Glaucoma Patients. Curr Ophthalmol Rep. 2022;10(3):85-90.
Chakravarti T. The Association of Socioeconomic Status with Severity of Glaucoma and the Impacts of Both Factors on the Costs of Glaucoma Medications: A Cross-Sectional Study in West Bengal, India. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Jul/Aug;34(6):442-451.
Puthuran GV, Palmberg P, Wijesinghe HK, Krishnadas SR, Robin A. Intermediate-Term Outcomes of an Affordable Aqueous Drainage Implant in Adults with Refractory Glaucoma. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2019 Jul-Aug;2(4):258-266.
Shah VJ, Abdul Khadar SM, Venugopal Reddy YC, Adeel SS, Kader MA, Ramakrishnan R, Nair S. Aurolab aqueous drainage implant in the vitreous cavity: Our modifications over the conventional technique of glaucoma implant surgery. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021 Jul;69(7):1950-1952.
Rojananuangnit K, Jiaranaisilawong P, Rattanaphaithun O, Sathim W. Surgical Outcomes of Glaucoma Drainage Device Implantation in Refractory Glaucoma Patients in Thailand. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:4163-4178.
Khan AM, Ahmad K, Alarfaj M, Alotaibi H, AlJaloud A, Malik R. Surgical outcomes of the Aurolab aqueous drainage implant (AADI) versus the Ahmed glaucoma valve for refractory paediatric glaucoma in Middle Eastern children. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2021 Nov 10;6(1): e000831.
Senthil S, Gollakota S, Ali MH, et al. Comparison of the new low-cost Nonvalved glaucoma drainage device with Ahmed glaucoma valve in refractory pediatric glaucoma in Indian eyes. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 2018;1:167–74.
Pandav SS, Seth NG, Thattaruthody F, et al.. Long-Term outcome of low-cost glaucoma drainage device (Aurolab aqueous drainage implant) compared with Ahmed glaucoma valve. Br J Ophthalmol 2020;104:557–62.
Hafeezullah N, AlHilali S, Alghulaydhawi F, et al.. A preliminary comparison of the Aravind aurolab drainage implant with the Baerveldt glaucoma implant: a matched case-control study. Eur J Ophthalmol 2021;31:445–52.
Rateb MF, Abdel Motaal H, Shehata M, et al.. Outcome of a low-cost glaucoma implant versus the Baerveldt glaucoma implant for paediatric glaucoma in a tertiary hospital in Egypt. J Ophthalmol 2019; 2019:1–6.
Kaushik S, Kataria P, Raj S, Pandav SS, Ram J. Safety and efficacy of a low-cost glaucoma drainage device for refractory childhood glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017 Dec;101(12):1623-1627.
DOI:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310276.
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; 108:621 6.
Roy S, Ravinet E, Mermoud A. Baerveldt implant in refractory glaucoma: Long-term results and factors influencing outcome. Int Ophthalmol. 2001;24:93–100.