Tube erosions following glaucoma drainage device implantations

Abstract Glaucoma drainage devices (GDD) are an important treatment option for advanced and complex glaucoma patients. To prevent tube erosion, different materials may be used to patch the tube. The aim of this study was to compare tube erosion rates of allogenous fascia lata versus corneal stromal...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Julia Prinz, Karl Mercieca, Laura-Jill Förster, Kira Hilmers, Peter Walter, Matthias Fuest, Björn Bachmann, Claus Cursiefen, Verena Prokosch
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Nature Portfolio 2025-07-01
Series:Scientific Reports
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-08282-x
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849332839686864896
author Julia Prinz
Karl Mercieca
Laura-Jill Förster
Kira Hilmers
Peter Walter
Matthias Fuest
Björn Bachmann
Claus Cursiefen
Verena Prokosch
author_facet Julia Prinz
Karl Mercieca
Laura-Jill Förster
Kira Hilmers
Peter Walter
Matthias Fuest
Björn Bachmann
Claus Cursiefen
Verena Prokosch
author_sort Julia Prinz
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Glaucoma drainage devices (GDD) are an important treatment option for advanced and complex glaucoma patients. To prevent tube erosion, different materials may be used to patch the tube. The aim of this study was to compare tube erosion rates of allogenous fascia lata versus corneal stromal patches relating to Ahmed glaucoma implant (AGI) and Paul glaucoma implant (PGI) surgeries. In this retrospective study, 84 patients were included. The tube was covered with allogenous fascia lata (n = 43) or a corneal stromal patch (n = 41). 32 eyes of 31 patients underwent AGI and 52 eyes of 52 patients underwent PGI surgeries. The number of tube erosions was evaluated during 18 months of follow-up. Tube erosions occurred in 4 patients with fascia lata patches (9.3%) and 1 patient (2.4%) with a corneal stromal patch (p = 0.184). In the superior quadrants (n = 78; 92.9% of all GDD), tube erosions were significantly more frequent with fascia lata (n = 4) compared to corneal stromal (n = 0) patches (p = 0.045). There was no difference in the number of tube erosions between the AGI (n = 2) and PGI (n = 3) group (p = 0.928). Tube erosions after GDD are rare. Fascia lata patches were more frequently associated with tube erosions than corneal stromal patches.
format Article
id doaj-art-bf0ee4a0cc7e45178df4e4e953496ace
institution Kabale University
issn 2045-2322
language English
publishDate 2025-07-01
publisher Nature Portfolio
record_format Article
series Scientific Reports
spelling doaj-art-bf0ee4a0cc7e45178df4e4e953496ace2025-08-20T03:46:05ZengNature PortfolioScientific Reports2045-23222025-07-011511910.1038/s41598-025-08282-xTube erosions following glaucoma drainage device implantationsJulia Prinz0Karl Mercieca1Laura-Jill Förster2Kira Hilmers3Peter Walter4Matthias Fuest5Björn Bachmann6Claus Cursiefen7Verena Prokosch8Department of Ophthalmology, RWTH Aachen UniversityDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of BonnDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of CologneDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of CologneDepartment of Ophthalmology, RWTH Aachen UniversityDepartment of Ophthalmology, RWTH Aachen UniversityDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of CologneDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of CologneDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of CologneAbstract Glaucoma drainage devices (GDD) are an important treatment option for advanced and complex glaucoma patients. To prevent tube erosion, different materials may be used to patch the tube. The aim of this study was to compare tube erosion rates of allogenous fascia lata versus corneal stromal patches relating to Ahmed glaucoma implant (AGI) and Paul glaucoma implant (PGI) surgeries. In this retrospective study, 84 patients were included. The tube was covered with allogenous fascia lata (n = 43) or a corneal stromal patch (n = 41). 32 eyes of 31 patients underwent AGI and 52 eyes of 52 patients underwent PGI surgeries. The number of tube erosions was evaluated during 18 months of follow-up. Tube erosions occurred in 4 patients with fascia lata patches (9.3%) and 1 patient (2.4%) with a corneal stromal patch (p = 0.184). In the superior quadrants (n = 78; 92.9% of all GDD), tube erosions were significantly more frequent with fascia lata (n = 4) compared to corneal stromal (n = 0) patches (p = 0.045). There was no difference in the number of tube erosions between the AGI (n = 2) and PGI (n = 3) group (p = 0.928). Tube erosions after GDD are rare. Fascia lata patches were more frequently associated with tube erosions than corneal stromal patches.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-08282-xGlaucomaRefractory glaucomaIntraocular pressureGlaucoma drainage devicesFascia lata
spellingShingle Julia Prinz
Karl Mercieca
Laura-Jill Förster
Kira Hilmers
Peter Walter
Matthias Fuest
Björn Bachmann
Claus Cursiefen
Verena Prokosch
Tube erosions following glaucoma drainage device implantations
Scientific Reports
Glaucoma
Refractory glaucoma
Intraocular pressure
Glaucoma drainage devices
Fascia lata
title Tube erosions following glaucoma drainage device implantations
title_full Tube erosions following glaucoma drainage device implantations
title_fullStr Tube erosions following glaucoma drainage device implantations
title_full_unstemmed Tube erosions following glaucoma drainage device implantations
title_short Tube erosions following glaucoma drainage device implantations
title_sort tube erosions following glaucoma drainage device implantations
topic Glaucoma
Refractory glaucoma
Intraocular pressure
Glaucoma drainage devices
Fascia lata
url https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-08282-x
work_keys_str_mv AT juliaprinz tubeerosionsfollowingglaucomadrainagedeviceimplantations
AT karlmercieca tubeerosionsfollowingglaucomadrainagedeviceimplantations
AT laurajillforster tubeerosionsfollowingglaucomadrainagedeviceimplantations
AT kirahilmers tubeerosionsfollowingglaucomadrainagedeviceimplantations
AT peterwalter tubeerosionsfollowingglaucomadrainagedeviceimplantations
AT matthiasfuest tubeerosionsfollowingglaucomadrainagedeviceimplantations
AT bjornbachmann tubeerosionsfollowingglaucomadrainagedeviceimplantations
AT clauscursiefen tubeerosionsfollowingglaucomadrainagedeviceimplantations
AT verenaprokosch tubeerosionsfollowingglaucomadrainagedeviceimplantations