Outcomes of combined endoscopic vitrectomy and posteriorly placed glaucoma drainage devices in pediatric patients

Background

This study aims to describe outcomes of posteriorly-placed glaucoma drainage devices (GDD) with concurrent endoscopic vitrectomy in pediatric patients with glaucoma and corneal opacification.

Methods

This retrospective case series identified patients under 18 years of age who underwent posteriorly-placed GDD implantation with concurrent endoscopic vitrectomy between 2012 and 2021. Data collected included ocular diagnoses, prior intraocular surgeries, type and position of GDD, surgical complications, and additional surgeries. Preoperative and final visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), number of glaucoma medications, and exam findings were also recorded. Surgical data included type and position of GDD, Success was defined as IOP between 5-21 mmHg without visually devastating complication or need for additional glaucoma surgery.

Results

Ten patients (14 eyes) with sclerocornea (6), Peters Anomaly (4), corneal decompensation from increased IOP (3), and corneal scar (1) underwent combined endoscopic vitrectomy with posteriorly-placed GDD (Baerveldt (10 eyes), Ahmed (4 eyes)) at 4.6 ± 5.8 years of age. Four eyes of 3 patients remained successful at final follow-up, while 10 eyes of 7 patients required 2.4 ± 1.3 additional surgeries for glaucoma (7) or hypotony (3). Kaplan Meier analysis demonstrated 1- and 2-year survival rates of 36% and 18%, respectively. At final follow-up (3.7 ± 2.4 years), after an average of 4.4 ± 2.4 glaucoma surgeries, 13 of 14 eyes had obtained IOP control on significantly fewer (p<0.0001) IOP-lowering medications. Additional complications included retinal detachment (2), chronic corneal graft failure (2), phthisis (1) and band keratopathy (1).

Conclusions

Management of glaucoma in pediatric eyes with corneal opacification is challenging and often requires multiple surgeries. A combined endoscopic vitrectomy and posteriorly placed GDD is a viable technique to establish aqueous humor outflow. Although the success rate is low, this surgical approach may be useful in ultimately obtaining IOP control and preserving vision in these complex eyes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12886-022-02373-3.

Endoscopy-assisted vitrectomy vs. vitrectomy alone: comparative study in complex retinal detachment with proliferative vitreoretinopathy

Background

Recurrent retinal detachment (RD) is still a widespread event despite the therapeutic options available. Proliferative vitreoretinopoathy (PVR) is one of the main causes of redetachment. Little is known about the use of endoscopy-assisted vitrectomy (E-PPV) in complex recurrent RD with PVR. The purpose of this study was to identify the potential advantages of E-PPV in complex RD with PVR compared with pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) alone.

Methods

Single-center, retrospective, observational, descriptive study. The medical records of 293 patients were reviewed. Patients who underwent PPV for complex rhegmatogenous RD and associated PVR between 2009 and 2017 were included. Patients with diabetic tractional RD, trauma, uveitis or detachment postendophthalmitis were excluded. After 2013, an endoscopic visualization system was used in a nonrandomized fashion at the surgeon’s discretion. Outcome measures (reattachment rate, number of surgeries, lens status, PVR stage, intraocular pressure, phthisis rate) were compared between the E-PPV and PPV-only groups with independent samples t-tests (continuous variables) and Fisher’s exact test (categorical variables), as well as time-adjusted analyses. Postoperative time to retinal redetachment was assessed with Kaplan–Meier survival analysis.

Results

One hundred one eyes from 100 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean participant age was 63.3 years old (95% CI 60.4–66.1 years), without a significant difference between groups. E-PPV was performed in 36.6% (n = 37) of eyes, and 63.4% (n = 64) underwent PPV only. The mean follow-up was significantly longer in the PPV-only group (31.9 vs. 21.1 months; p = 0.021). Upon adjustment for follow-up duration, the mean number of surgeries was significantly lower in the PPV-only group (2.6 vs. 4.3 number of surgeries; p < 0.001) than in the E-PPV group. A significantly higher risk for redetachment was observed in the PPV-only group (HR [95% CI] 4.1 [1.4–11.8]) than in the E-PPV group (p = 0.037). The evolution to phthisis was 7% (n = 4) in the PPV-only group and 2.7% (n = 1) in the E-PPV group (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Compared to PPV alone, endoscopy-assisted vitrectomy seems to be advantageous in achieving better reattachment rates in complex RD with advanced PVR. Endoscopic visualization allows a thorough examination and extensive anterior PVR and vitreous base dissection.

Special considerations for pediatric vitreoretinal surgery

In this review, the authors present special considerations a vitreoretinal surgeon should take into account before embarking on surgery in a pediatric eye. First, the anatomy of a pediatric eye is different from an adult and changes as the child grows. This is important especially in relation to the placement of transconjunctival ports. The structural characteristics of the sclera are also different, with lower scleral rigidity found in pediatric eyes. When considering vitrectomy, a posterior pars plicata lens-sparing technique should be considered. However, this may not be possible in complicated total detachments where anterior translimbal vitrectomy may be the method of choice. Scleral buckles are preferred for certain cases, and division of the encirclage is advocated in children below the age of 2 years, once the retina has stabilized. Enzymatic vitreolysis has been described as a preoperative adjunct to enhance complete detachment of the posterior hyaloid and reduce iatrogenic retinal breaks. However, its use in pediatric eyes has been limited, and larger studies are warranted. Finally, postoperative visual rehabilitation and treatment of amblyopia are key to maximizing functional outcomes in the pediatric patient. Co-management with a pediatric ophthalmologist and enlisting the co-operation of the parents are essential.