Surgical Outcome of Replacing a Failed Ahmed Glaucoma Valve by a Baerveldt Glaucoma Implant in the Same Quadrant in Refractory Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe the surgical technique and outcomes in eyes that underwent surgery to replace a failed Ahmed valve by a Baerveldt glaucoma implant in the same quadrant. METHODS: This study was a retrospective case series of 9 patients. Parameters analyzed include age, glaucoma type, prior surgery, complications, intraocular pressure (IOP), visual acuity, and number of glaucoma medications before and after the surgery. Surgical success was defined as having either an IOP below 21 mm Hg or a 20% IOP reduction, with or without hypotensive agent. RESULTS: The mean follow-up duration was 47 months. After surgery, at the time of final follow-up, the mean IOP decreased from 29.9 mm Hg to 16.7 mm Hg (36% of mean IOP reduction; P=0.008). There was a significant reduction of hypotensive agents from a mean of 4.33 to 2.22 (P=0.02). The visual acuity did not have a significant deterioration (P=0.07). In the final visit, 5 of 9 patients met total success criteria and 2 patients were qualified successes. Two cases failed totally after 69 and 125 months of follow-up. The cumulative probability of total success after 6 months was 76% and this rate remained stable until the sixth year. One patient had bullous keratopathy. Two patients had early postoperative pressure spikes: the first patient was treated by trabeculectomy, and the second by vitrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: A replacement of the failed Ahmed glaucoma valve by a new Baerveldt glaucoma implant in the same quadrant can be a reasonable choice to control refractory glaucoma.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".