Abstract

BackgroundThis study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of the Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) with the Baerveldt glaucoma implant (BGI) in glaucoma patients.MethodsDatabases were searched to identify studies that met pre-stated inclusion criteria, involving randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled clinical trials. Treatment effect was analyzed using a random-effect model.ResultsTen controlled clinical trials (1048 eyes) were analyzed, involving two RCTs and eight retrospective comparative studies. Short-term results (6–18 months) and long-term results (>18 months) were analyzed separately. There was no significant difference in the success rate for short-term follow-up between the AGV and BGI groups (5studies, 714 eyes, odds ratio [OR]: 0.97; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.56, 1.66; P = 0.90). For long-term pooled results (7studies, 835 eyes), the success rate of AGVs was lower than that of BGIs (OR: 0.73; 95 % CI: 0.54, 0.99, P = 0.04), However, subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not show a significant difference in the success rate between the two groups (P ≥0.05). The AGV group had a higher mean intraocular pressure than the BGI group in short-term (6 studies, 685 eyes, weighted mean difference [WMD]: 2.12 mmHg; 95 % CI: 0.72–3.52; P <0.05) and long-term pooled results (7 studies, 659 eyes, WMD: 1.85 mmHg; 95 % CI: 0.43, 3.28; P = 0.01). The BGI group required fewer glaucoma medications after implantation than the AGV group in two follow-up periods (all P <0.05). The AGV was found to be associated with a significantly lower frequency of total complications (8 studies, 971 eyes, OR: 0.67; 95 % CI: 0.50–0.90; P = 0.007) and severe complications (8 studies, 971 eyes, OR: 0.57; 95 % CI: 0.36–0.91; P = 0.02) than the BGI.ConclusionsThe study showed no significant difference in success rate between the two groups. The BGI was more effective for control of intraocular pressure and required fewer medications than the AGV, but the AGV had lower incidence of total and severe complications than the BGI.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12886-015-0115-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of the Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) with the Baerveldt glaucoma implant (BGI) in glaucoma patients

  • Studies meeting the following criteria were considered eligible for our meta-analyses: (1) a study design involving comparative clinical trials, including randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled clinical trials; (2) eyes diagnosed with glaucoma undergoing the AGV or BGI; and (3) at least one of the following reported outcomes: success rate, number of glaucoma medicines, mean intraocular pressure (IOP), and occurrence of adverse events

  • Ten articles that enrolled a total of 1048 eyes (486 in the AGV group and 562 in the BGI group) were included in our meta-analysis [7, 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of the Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) with the Baerveldt glaucoma implant (BGI) in glaucoma patients. Glaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. Because conventional trabeculectomy and glaucoma medicines result in low success rates [1, 2], glaucoma drainage implants (GDIs) have been used with increasing frequency in the management of refractory glaucoma. In 1969, Molteno [3] invented the first of many glaucoma implants. Wang et al BMC Ophthalmology (2015) 15:132 the BGI. A study by Budenz et al showed that BGI implants produce greater long-term reduction in IOP [7]. In the present study, we aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of these two devices for treating patients with glaucoma

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call