Home > News > Advances in the Surgical Management of Glaucoma—The Role of the EX-PRESS® Glaucoma Filtration Device
Glaucoma
Read Time: < 1 min

Advances in the Surgical Management of Glaucoma—The Role of the EX-PRESS® Glaucoma Filtration Device

Published Online: June 21st 2012 US Ophthalmic Review, 2012;5(2):81-6 DOI: http://doi.org/10.17925/USOR.2012.05.02.81
Authors: David W Cope
Quick Links:
Abstract
Article
Article Information
Abstract:
Overview

By reducing intraocular pressure (IOP), we aim to arrest the glaucomatous process. Our strategies include medical, laser, and surgical techniques. Trabeculectomy is the gold standard drainage surgery to achieve this; as there can be a high degree of variability in the procedure and its success depends on bleb creation, with the challenges of wound healing modulation, results remain unpredictable. Several devices are being assessed to try to achieve ‘minimally invasive glaucoma surgery’. While results will take some years to evaluate rigorously, it seems IOP levels by these means lie in the mid-teens. These minimally invasive glaucoma surgery techniques therefore would appear to be destined for patients whose glaucomatous damage is relatively mild to moderate and whose target IOPs fall into this range. To simultaneously achieve lower IOPs for patients with more advanced visual loss, efforts have been made to ‘fine-tune’ trabeculectomy. Use of the EX-PRESS® Glaucoma Filtration Device (GFD) under a scleral flap is one such approach. How does the EX-PRESS® GFD benefit the conventional trabeculectomy procedure? What tips and tricks contribute to its success? How safe is it? Is the additional cost to our health systems justifiable? This symposium, sponsored by Alcon, set out to try to answer these questions.

Keywords

Aqueous outflow, filtration surgery, glaucoma, intraocular pressure, trabeculectomy

Article:

Although for open-angle glaucoma the level of intraocular pressure (IOP) is no longer recognized as a defining criterion, it is a major risk factor for the development and progression of the disease.1–6 Medical, laser, and surgical therapies therefore reduce IOP to attempt to modify disease progression.7,8 Trabeculectomy is the current gold standard of filtration surgery in the management of primary open-angle glaucoma following the failure of IOP-lowering medications or non-invasive surgery such as laser trabeculoplasty.9–11 Trabeculectomy can effectively control IOP,12–15 even in the long term,16–20 but published success rates can vary, in part due to the lack of standard definitions of success.21 Moreover, trabeculectomy is associated with significant complications including early post-operative hypotony, bleb leak, blebitis and bleb failure, choroidal effusions, endophthalmitis, hyphema, shallowing of the anterior chamber, and accelerated cataract progression.9 Patients who fail to respond to trabeculectomy may require additional surgery, in some instances a second trabeculectomy, or implantation of a drainage device.22 As a result, some studies have suggested that the risks of trabeculectomy outweigh the benefits.18,23

Incremental improvements in trabeculectomy have proved valuable in refining the technique and include the use of a traction suture to control the position of the eye, appropriate and optimal wound healing techniques to prevent fibrosis and scarring, use of a fornix-based conjunctival flap, creation of a large scleral flap to maximize posterior aqueous flow and enable the development of a diffuse bleb, adjustable sutures to control aqueous flow, and a standardized trabeculectomy aperture.24,25 Such refinements can improve patient outcomes.26,27

To view the full article in PDF or eBook formats, please click on the icons above.

Article Information:
Disclosure

David Cope is a medical writer at Touch Briefings. Ivan Goldberg is an advisory board member for Alcon, Allergan, Merck, and Pfizer, a consultant for Alcon, ForSight, and Merck, and receives research support from Alcon and Allergan.

Correspondence

Ivan Goldberg, Discipline of Ophthalmology, University of Sydney, Eye Associates, Floor 4, Macquarie Street, Sydney 2000, Australia. E: eyegoldberg@gmail.com

Support

The editorial support for, and publication of, this article was funded by Alcon.

Received

2011-09-16T00:00:00

References

  1. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. The effectiveness of intraocular pressure reduction in the treatment of normal-tension glaucoma, Am J Ophthalmol, 1998;126:498–505.
  2. The AGIS Investigators. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration, Am J Ophthalmol, 2000;130:429–40.
  3. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, et al., Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment. The Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial, Arch Ophthalmol, 2003;121:48–56.
  4. Sommer A, Tielsch JM, Katz J, et al., Relationship between intraocular pressure and primary open angle glaucoma among white and black Americans, Arch Ophthalmol, 1991;109:1090–5.
  5. Wesselink C, Marcus MW, Jansonius NM, Risk factors for visual field progression in the Groningen Longitudinal Glaucoma Study: a comparison of different statistical approaches, J Glaucoma, 2011 Jun 22. [Epub ahead of print].
  6. Quigley HA, Glaucoma, Lancet, 2011;377:1367–77.
  7. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al., Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression. Results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial, Arch Ophthalmol, 2002;120:1268–79.
  8. Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, et al., Interim clinical outcomes in The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery, Ophthalmology, 2001;108:1943–53.
  9. Edmunds B, Thompson JR, Salmon JF, Wormald RP, The National Survey of Trabeculectomy. III. Early and late complications, Eye (Lond), 2002;16:297–303.
  10. Mantravadi AV, Myers JS, Reconsidering trabeculectomy’s strengths and weaknesses, Clin Experiment Ophthalmol, 2010;38:827–8.
  11. Sharaawy T, Bhartiya S, Surgical management of glaucoma: evolving paradigms, Indian J Ophthalmol, 2011;59(Suppl. 1):S123–30.
  12. Diestelhorst M, Khalili MA, Krieglstein GK, Trabeculectomy: a retrospective follow-up of 700 eyes, Int Ophthalmol, 1999;22:211–20.
  13. Edmunds B, Thompson JR, Salmon JF, Wormald RP, The National Survey of Trabeculectomy. II. Variations in operative technique and outcome, Eye (Lond), 2001;15:441–8.
  14. Ehrnrooth P, Lehto I, Puska P, Laatikainen L, Long-term outcome of trabeculectomy in terms of intraocular pressure, Acta Ophthalmol Scand, 2002;80:267–71.
  15. Gedde SJ, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, et al., Treatment outcomes in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy Study after one year of follow-up, Am J Ophthalmol, 2007;143:9–22.
  16. Beckers HJM, Kinders KC, Webers CAB, Five-year results of trabeculectomy with mitomycin C, Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2003;241:106–10.
  17. Bevin TH, Molteno ACB, Herbison P, Otago Glaucoma Surgery Outcome Study: long-term results of 841 trabeculectomies, Clin Experiment Ophthalmol, 2008;36:731–7.
  18. Bindlish R, Condon GP, Schlosser JD, et al., Efficacy and safety of mitomycin-C in primary trabeculectomy, Ophthalmology, 2002;109:1336–42.
  19. Crowston JG, Long-term outcomes of trabeculectomy, Clin Experiment Ophthalmol, 2008;36:705–6.
  20. Molteno ACB, Bosma NJ, Kittelson JM, Otago Glaucoma Surgery Outcome Study. Long-term results of trabeculectomy - 1976 to 1995, Ophthalmology, 1999;106:1742–50.
  21. Rotchford AP, King AJ, Moving the goal posts. Definitions of success after glaucoma surgery and their effect on reported outcome, Ophthalmology, 2010;117:18–23.
  22. Patel S, Pasquale LR, Glaucoma drainage devices: a review of the past, present, and future, Semin Ophthalmol, 2010;25:265–70.
  23. DeBry PW, Perkins TW, Heatley G, et al., Incidence of lateonset bleb-related complications following trabeculectomy with mitomycin, Arch Ophthalmol, 2002;120:297–300.
  24. Jones E, Clarke J, Khaw PT, Recent advances in trabeculectomy technique, Curr Opin Ophthalmol, 2005;16:107–13.
  25. Papadopoulos A, Khaw PT, Improving glaucoma filtering surgery, Eye (Lond), 2001;15:131–2.
  26. Gale J, Wells AP, Medium-term outcomes of safe surgery system trabeculectomies, Br J Ophthalmol, 2008;92:1232–5.
  27. Stalmans I, Gillis A, Lafaut AS, Zeyen T, Safe trabeculectomy technique: long term outcome, Br J Ophthalmol, 2008;90:44–7.
  28. Salim S, Ex-PRESS glaucoma filtration device-surgical technique and outcomes, Int Ophthalmol Clin, 2011;51:83–94.
  29. Alcon EX-PRESS glaucoma filtration device package insert, 2011. Available at: www.alconglaucomasurgery.com (accessed March 8, 2012).
  30. Nyska A, Glovinsky Y, Belkin M, Epstein Y, Biocompatibility of the Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma drainage implant, J Glaucoma, 2003;12:275–80.
  31. Stewart RM, Diamond JG, Ashmore ED, Ayyala RS, Complications following Ex-Press glaucoma shunt implantation, Am J Ophthalmol, 2005;140:340–1.
  32. Traverso CE, De Feo F, Messas-Kaplan A, et al., Long term effect on IOP of a stainless steel glaucoma drainage implant (Ex-PRESS) in combined surgery with phacoemulsification, Br J Ophthalmol, 2005;89:425–9.
  33. Wamsley S, Moster MR, Rai S, et al., Results of the use of the Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma implant in technically challenging, advanced glaucoma cases: a clinical pilot study, Am J Ophthalmol, 2004;138:1049–51.
  34. Dahan E, Carmichael TR, Implantation of a miniature glaucoma device under a scleral flap, J Glaucoma, 2005;14:98–102.
  35. Maris PJ Jr, Ishida K, Netland PA, Comparison of trabeculectomy with Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma device implanted under scleral flap, J Glaucoma, 2007;16:14–9.
  36. de Jong LA, The Ex-PRESS glaucoma shunt versus trabeculectomy in open-angle glaucoma: a prospective randomized study, Adv Ther, 2009;26:336–45.
  37. de Jong L, Lafuma A, Aguadé AS, Berdeaux G, Five-year extension of a clinical trial comparing the EX-PRESS glaucoma filtration device and trabeculectomy in primary open-angle glaucoma, Clin Ophthalmol, 2011;5:527–33.
  38. Seibold LK, Rorrer RAL, Kahook MY, MRI of the Ex-PRESS stainless steel glaucoma drainage device, Br J Ophthalmol, 2011;95:251–4.
  39. Geffen N, Trope GE, Alasbali T, et al., Is the Ex-PRESS glaucoma shunt magnetic resonance imaging safe?, J Glaucoma, 2010;19:116–8.
  40. De Feo F, Roccatagliata L, Bonzano L, et al., Magnetic resonance imaging in patients implanted with Ex-PRESS stainless steel glaucoma drainage microdevice, Am J Ophthalmol, 2009;147:907–11.
  41. Kanner EM, Netland PA, Sarkisian SR Jr, Du H, Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma device implanted under a scleral flap alone or combined with phacoemulsification cataract surgery, J Glaucoma, 2009;18:488–91.
  42. Lankaranian D, Razeghinejad MR, Prasad A, et al., Intermediate-term results of the Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma implant under a scleral flap in previously operated eyes, Clin Experiment Ophthalmol, 2011;39:421–8.

Further Resources

Share this Article
Related Content In Glaucoma
  • Copied to clipboard!
    accredited arrow-downarrow_leftarrow-right-bluearrow-right-dark-bluearrow-right-greenarrow-right-greyarrow-right-orangearrow-right-whitearrow-right-bluearrow-up-orangeavatarcalendarchevron-down consultant-pathologist-nurseconsultant-pathologistcrosscrossdownloademailexclaimationfeedbackfiltergraph-arrowinterviewslinkmdt_iconmenumore_dots nurse-consultantpadlock patient-advocate-pathologistpatient-consultantpatientperson pharmacist-nurseplay_buttonplay-colour-tmcplay-colourAsset 1podcastprinter scenerysearch share single-doctor social_facebooksocial_googleplussocial_instagramsocial_linkedin_altsocial_linkedin_altsocial_pinterestlogo-twitter-glyph-32social_youtubeshape-star (1)tick-bluetick-orangetick-whiteticktimetranscriptup-arrowwebinar Department Location NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-07NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-08NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-09NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-10NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-11NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-12Salary £ TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-01TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-02TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-03TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-04TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-05TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-06TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-07TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-08TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-09TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-10TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-11TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-12TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-13TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-14TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-15TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-16TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-17TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-18TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-19TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-20TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-21TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-22TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-23TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-24TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-25TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-26TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-27TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-28TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-29TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-30TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-31TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-32TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-33TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-34TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-35TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-36TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-37TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-38TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-39TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-40TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-41TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-42TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-43TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-44TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-45TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-46TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-47TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-48TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-49TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-50TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-51TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-52TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-53TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-54TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-55TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-56TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-57TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-58TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-59TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-60TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-61TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-62TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-63TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-64TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-65TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-66TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-67TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-68TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-69TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-70TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-71TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-72