Cargando…
Outflow Facility in Tube Shunt Fenestration
AIM: Determination of the effect of varying fenestration technique, and simulated patch graft on outflow facility for Baerveldt tube. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Silicone tubing similar to Baerveldt implant (AMO, Santa Ana, CA) with different fenestrations techniques was connected to a digital manometer...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6647827/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31354203 http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10028-1255 |
_version_ | 1783437757559865344 |
---|---|
author | Olayanju, Jessica Borras, Teresa Qaqish, Bahjat Fleischman, David |
author_facet | Olayanju, Jessica Borras, Teresa Qaqish, Bahjat Fleischman, David |
author_sort | Olayanju, Jessica |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: Determination of the effect of varying fenestration technique, and simulated patch graft on outflow facility for Baerveldt tube. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Silicone tubing similar to Baerveldt implant (AMO, Santa Ana, CA) with different fenestrations techniques was connected to a digital manometer in a closed system with a fluid-filled syringe on a stand to adjust pressure. The venting slits included: (A) 4 piercings with 7–0 TG140-8 needle; (B) a 2-mm slit with a 15° blade; (C) 4 piercings with a 15° blade; (D) 9–0 Nylon on CS140-6 needle with suture stenting the fenestration. RESULTS: For pressures of 10, 20, 30, 40 mm Hg in groups A to D, the average outflow facility (mL/min/mm Hg) were group A: 0.11, 0.20, 0.28, 0.40; group B: 0.30, 0.69, 0.98, 0.93; group C: 0.73, 0.80, 0.81, 0.88; group D: 0.58, 0.65, 0.80, 0.87. For external compression with 10 gram weights at pressures of 10, 20, 30, 40 mm Hg, outflow were group A: 0.0, 0.18, 0.20, 0.53; group B: 0.75, 0.70, 0.97, 1.21. Group C: 0.18, 0.03, 0.57, 0.04. Group D: 0.73, 0.90, 1.13, 0.91. CONCLUSION: Effectivity of venting slits in maintaining adequate IOP in the early postoperative period for non-valved glaucoma implant is variable, multifactorial and largely intraocular pressure (IOP) dependent. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study explores methods of producing fenestration and the effects on outflow at different pressures in an attempt to determine which fenestration technique has more reproducible results that can be made applicable in clinical practice. This is also the first study to evaluate the effect of external pressures similar to scleral patch graft on the tube fenestrations. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Olayanju J, Borras T, Qaqish B, Fleischman D. Outflow Facility in Tube Shunt Fenestration. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2018;12(3):113-118. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6647827 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66478272019-07-26 Outflow Facility in Tube Shunt Fenestration Olayanju, Jessica Borras, Teresa Qaqish, Bahjat Fleischman, David J Curr Glaucoma Pract Original Article AIM: Determination of the effect of varying fenestration technique, and simulated patch graft on outflow facility for Baerveldt tube. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Silicone tubing similar to Baerveldt implant (AMO, Santa Ana, CA) with different fenestrations techniques was connected to a digital manometer in a closed system with a fluid-filled syringe on a stand to adjust pressure. The venting slits included: (A) 4 piercings with 7–0 TG140-8 needle; (B) a 2-mm slit with a 15° blade; (C) 4 piercings with a 15° blade; (D) 9–0 Nylon on CS140-6 needle with suture stenting the fenestration. RESULTS: For pressures of 10, 20, 30, 40 mm Hg in groups A to D, the average outflow facility (mL/min/mm Hg) were group A: 0.11, 0.20, 0.28, 0.40; group B: 0.30, 0.69, 0.98, 0.93; group C: 0.73, 0.80, 0.81, 0.88; group D: 0.58, 0.65, 0.80, 0.87. For external compression with 10 gram weights at pressures of 10, 20, 30, 40 mm Hg, outflow were group A: 0.0, 0.18, 0.20, 0.53; group B: 0.75, 0.70, 0.97, 1.21. Group C: 0.18, 0.03, 0.57, 0.04. Group D: 0.73, 0.90, 1.13, 0.91. CONCLUSION: Effectivity of venting slits in maintaining adequate IOP in the early postoperative period for non-valved glaucoma implant is variable, multifactorial and largely intraocular pressure (IOP) dependent. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study explores methods of producing fenestration and the effects on outflow at different pressures in an attempt to determine which fenestration technique has more reproducible results that can be made applicable in clinical practice. This is also the first study to evaluate the effect of external pressures similar to scleral patch graft on the tube fenestrations. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Olayanju J, Borras T, Qaqish B, Fleischman D. Outflow Facility in Tube Shunt Fenestration. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2018;12(3):113-118. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6647827/ /pubmed/31354203 http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10028-1255 Text en Copyright © 2018; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ |
spellingShingle | Original Article Olayanju, Jessica Borras, Teresa Qaqish, Bahjat Fleischman, David Outflow Facility in Tube Shunt Fenestration |
title | Outflow Facility in Tube Shunt Fenestration |
title_full | Outflow Facility in Tube Shunt Fenestration |
title_fullStr | Outflow Facility in Tube Shunt Fenestration |
title_full_unstemmed | Outflow Facility in Tube Shunt Fenestration |
title_short | Outflow Facility in Tube Shunt Fenestration |
title_sort | outflow facility in tube shunt fenestration |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6647827/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31354203 http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10028-1255 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT olayanjujessica outflowfacilityintubeshuntfenestration AT borrasteresa outflowfacilityintubeshuntfenestration AT qaqishbahjat outflowfacilityintubeshuntfenestration AT fleischmandavid outflowfacilityintubeshuntfenestration |