A Comparison of Scleral Tunnel and Pericardial Graft Implantation Techniques in Patients undergoing Ahmed Glaucoma Valve Implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the two methods autologous scleral flap (scleral tunnel) and pericardial patch graft of tube covered in Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) in refractory glaucoma with respect to the tube exposure, infection, level of Intraocular Pressure (IOP), and any other complications due to applications of each technique. A retrospective chart review of 113 eyes in 102 patients with refractory glaucoma who underwent ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implantation (39 eyes in scleral tunnel and scleral flap group “first group” and 74 eyes in pericardium graft group” second group”) was performed. The procedures in these eyes were performed between January 2007 and October 2015 in a tertiary eye care hospital in KSA. The mean age was 56 ± 19 (8 months- 83 years) in the Scleral tunnel group and 50 ± 27 (1- 78 years) in the Pericardium group (p = 0.023). Fifty-six males and 57 females were included in the study. Medians of the follow-up were 48 ± 25.5 months (3 – 89) for the Scleral tunnel group and 29 ± 21.4 months (2 – 92) for the Pericardium group, and it is statistically significant (P < 0.001). According to the findings, preoperative diagnosis in the two groups included neovascular glaucoma (NVG) found in 21 eyes (53.8%) in the Scleral tunnel group versus 18 eyes (24.3%) in the Pericardium group (p = 0.009). Exposure of the valve was found in 15 eyes (20.27%) in Pericardium graft group versus 2 eyes (5.12%) only in scleral tunnel group (p = 0.002). These exposed valves lead to endophthalmitis in 5 cases in the second group and no single case in scleral tunnel group was detected (P < 0.001). The postoperative IOP values were statistically insignificant in all different time periods. Scleral tunnel method has less exposure rate than the pericardium graft. The purpose of this study was to compare the two methods autologous scleral flap (scleral tunnel) and pericardial patch graft of tube covered in Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) in refractory glaucoma with respect to the tube exposure, infection, level of Intraocular Pressure (IOP), and any other complications due to applications of each technique. A retrospective chart review of 113 eyes in 102 patients with refractory glaucoma who underwent ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implantation (39 eyes in scleral tunnel and scleral flap group “first group” and 74 eyes in pericardium graft group” second group”) was performed. The procedures in these eyes were performed between January 2007 and October 2015 in a tertiary eye care hospital in KSA. The mean age was 56 ± 19 (8 months- 83 years) in the Scleral tunnel group and 50 ± 27 (1- 78 years) in the Pericardium group (p = 0.023). Fifty-six males and 57 females were included in the study. Medians of the follow-up were 48 ± 25.5 months (3 – 89) for the Scleral tunnel group and 29 ± 21.4 months (2 – 92) for the Pericardium group, and it is statistically significant (P < 0.001). According to the findings, preoperative diagnosis in the two groups included neovascular glaucoma (NVG) found in 21 eyes (53.8%) in the Scleral tunnel group versus 18 eyes (24.3%) in the Pericardium group (p = 0.009). Exposure of the valve was found in 15 eyes (20.27%) in Pericardium graft group versus 2 eyes (5.12%) only in scleral tunnel group (p = 0.002). These exposed valves lead to endophthalmitis in 5 cases in the second group and no single case in scleral tunnel group was detected (P < 0.001). The postoperative IOP values were statistically insignificant in all different time periods. Scleral tunnel method has less exposure rate than the pericardium graft.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".