Survey of the American Glaucoma Society Membership on Current Glaucoma Drainage Device Placement and Postoperative Corticosteroid Use

Sulcus Tube Internal Needle Guidewire Technique for Glaucoma Drainage Device Placement: Improving Surgical Ease and Precision

INTRODUCTION

Despite the rise of micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS), glaucoma drainage device implantation continues to be a mainstay among glaucoma surgical treatment options. Anterior chamber tube placement, while effective in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP), poses corneal endothelial risks. Ciliary sulcus tube placement shows promise in reduced corneal endothelial cell loss, but proper sulcus placement can be challenging. Our study describes the initial safety and effectiveness results using  a novel sulcus tube internal needle guidewire (STING) technique for glaucoma drainage device insertion into the ciliary sulcus.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the charts of all consecutive patients who underwent the STING technique using the Ahmed ClearPath, Ahmed Glaucoma Valve, or Baerveldt glaucoma implant with at least 6 months of follow-up. Demographic characteristics, type of glaucoma, previous medical and surgical treatment, pre- and postoperative IOP, pre- and postoperative medications, complications, and success rates were recorded.

RESULTS

Out of nine eyes, seven resulted in qualified success (77.8%). Preoperative mean IOP was 23.8 ± 6.3 mmHg, and postoperative IOP decreased significantly to 14.9 ± 3.7 mmHg (p = 0.008). The average number of preoperative medications per patient was 4.4 ± 0.7, while the average number of postoperative medications per patient was reduced significantly to 3.6 ± 1.0 (p = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

The STING technique is a novel method for placing a glaucoma drainage device into the ciliary sulcus, leading to IOP lowering with minimal complications. The STING technique is designed to improve surgical ease and increase anatomical precision of sulcus tube placement. Video available for this article.

Techniques and Preferences for Nonvalved Aqueous Shunts: A Survey of American Glaucoma Society Members

PURPOSE

To assess practice patterns and opinions of glaucoma specialists regarding indications, surgical technique, and postoperative management for nonvalved aqueous shunts.

DESIGN

Anonymous online survey study.

PARTICIPANTS

American Glaucoma Society (AGS) members.

METHODS

An anonymous online survey was distributed to glaucoma specialists via the AGS forum from June to August 2022.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Survey questions and responses were assessed in 4 sections: (1) general demographics and practice patterns; (2) nonvalved tubes vs. trabeculectomy; (3) nonvalved tubes vs. valved tubes; and (4) nonvalved tube techniques.

RESULTS

There were 132 respondents; nonvalved tubes were reported to be performed more often than trabeculectomy by 61% of respondents within 5 years of completing training and 23% of respondents with more than 15 years since completing training. The most frequently preferred types of nonvalved tubes were Baerveldt-350 (41%), Baerveldt-250 (27%), and ClearPath-250 (18%). In patients with lower target intraocular pressure (IOP), 92% of respondents preferred trabeculectomy over nonvalved tube; 33% cited a cutoff of < 12 mmHg, and 31% cited a cutoff of < 15 mmHg. In patients with higher preoperative IOP, 50% of respondents preferred valved over nonvalved tubes; 29% cited a cutoff of > 40 mmHg, and 38% cited a cutoff of > 30 mmHg. The most frequently used ligature was 7-0 Vicryl (69%). The most frequently used strategies for early IOP lowering were fenestrations without wicks (70%) and with wicks (22%), with one 10-0 Nylon being the most used wick technique (22%). Overall, 37% of respondents use a ripcord; among ripcord users, 55% use it for hypotony prevention (3-0 Prolene most common for this purpose at 35%), and 40% use it for optional early IOP lowering (4-0 Nylon most common for this purpose at 21%). If IOP is too high at postoperative week 4, 38% of respondents do not open the tube early.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate significant heterogeneity regarding specific indications, surgical technique, and postoperative management for nonvalved tubes. Future work is needed to identify and develop standardized guidelines alongside best practices.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

The International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury: Classification Accuracy and Challenges

Background

Successful utilization of the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) requires a comprehensive understanding of its rules, terminology, and several complex concepts. There have been no studies investigating classification accuracy since the newest ISNCSCI revision (2019).

Objectives

To evaluate classification accuracy of SCI professionals using the 2019 ISNCSCI edition, identify common mistakes and areas of confusion, and assess associations between experience in ISNCSCI classification and performance.

Methods

Members of the International Spinal Cord Society (ISCoS) and attendees of the ISCoS Annual Scientific Meeting 2021 were invited to complete an online survey that included six ISNCSCI cases to classify.

Results

A total of 107 persons completed the survey, with overall classification accuracy of 74.6%. Accuracy was highest for injury completeness (95.3%) and sensory level (91.1%) and lowest for motor zone of partial preservation (ZPP; 54.7%) and ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) grade (57.3%). Newer concepts, including the appropriate documentation of non-SCI conditions and classification of ZPP in incomplete injuries, contributed to several common errors. There was a significant association between overall classification accuracy and self-rated experience in the ISNCSCI classification (p = .017). Experience with the ISNCSCI examination, experience in SCI medicine, and occupation were not found to be significantly associated with overall classification accuracy.

Conclusion

Classification accuracy of an international cohort of SCI professionals was modest but greater than previous reports. Knowledge deficits about the 2019 ISNCSCI updates are prevalent and contribute to common classification errors. Further training in the utilization of the ISNCSCI is needed.