Efficacy and Safety of the Susanna Glaucoma Drainage Device After 1 Year of Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRECIS: This study found a rate of failure of 13.6% of the new Susanna Glaucoma Drainage Device (SGDD) after 1 year of follow-up. Severe complications occurred in 1 patient (4.5%). PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the success and complications rates of the SGDD implant in refractory glaucoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study. Medical records from all consecutive refractory glaucoma patients (failed trabeculectomies with the use of adjunctive mitomycin) followed in a private clinical practice were included in the study. All patients had undergone SGDD implant surgery from September 2016 to July 2019 were included. All surgeries were done by the same surgeon (R.S.). Primary outcome was surgical failure, defined as intraocular pressure (IOP) >18 mm Hg and/or <20% IOP reduction from baseline, IOP<5 mm Hg, reoperation for glaucoma, need of implant removal or loss of light perception vision. Secondary outcomes included mean IOP, use of supplemental medical therapy, and complications. RESULTS: In all, 22 eyes were analyzed. Mean patient age was 63±15 years (range: 27 to 87 y). Mean IOP decreased from 23±7 to 11±8 mm Hg (P<0.001, paired t test) at an average of 18±9 months after the tube implant. The mean SD number of glaucoma medications was reduced from 3.3±1 to 1.5±1.2 at the last postoperative visit (P<0.01, paired t test). No early postoperative complications occurred. There was 1 case of late persistent hypotony in a patient with previous endocyclophotocoagulation that was solved with tube ligature with silk 8-0. Failure because of high IOP occurred in 2 cases. There was no extrusion or erosion of the tube and the plate. CONCLUSION: The SGDD presented a 13.6% failure rate (86.4% success rate) with very few complications, being an efficient and safe alternative for 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".