Tube Revision Outcomes for Exposure with Different Repair Techniques

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to report our experience with eyes that presented with an initial GDD exposure and their subsequent outcome in terms of re-exposure. METHODS: A retrospective review of charts of 42 patients (43 eyes) who presented with a GDD exposure during the period 2008–2015 in a tertiary eye care center was performed. Demographic data, past ocular history, pre-operative and post-operative information including the surgical technique of GDD surgery and exposure repair were recorded. The patients were followed for further exposure to the date of the last follow-up clinic visit. For each type of repair technique, details were collected on risk and timing of GDD exposure. The baseline features of eyes that had further exposure after initial exposure were compared to eyes without further exposure. RESULTS: Forty-three eyes were identified which had repair after an initial exposure. The mean ± SD age was 54 ± 27 years. Of the GDDs, Ahmed FP7 was performed in 31 eyes, Ahmed FP8 in two eyes, Ahmed S2 in five eyes, Krupin valve in two eyes and Baerveldt 350 GDD in three eyes. The methods of repair and the relative risk [95% CI] of re-exposure were: conjunctival closure only (n=4; RR=2.10 [0.84–5.23]); repair with patch graft and conjunctival repair (n=18), RR=1.24 [0.51–3.01]; tube repositioning, use of patch graft and conjunctival repair (n=14), RR=1.0; tube removal with replacement in a different quadrant, patch graft and conjunctival repair (n=3), RR=1.87 [0.64–5.48]. After the first exposure, 18 eyes had a second re-exposure, four eyes had a third re-exposure, and 1 eye had a fourth exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The GDD exposure rates at our institution are consistent with other reports. Lack of a patch graft for repair is associated with a two-fold risk of subsequent re-exposure.